Is "Legend of Korra" any good?

Stargazer

Well-known member
There's no change of tune, and I wish you'd quit trying to score these cheap "gotchas." I enjoy the character in large part because she gets humbled from time to time. If Katara didn't take Toph down a peg a few times, if Toph's own stupid arrogance didn't get her captured repeatedly, if she didn't need correction from Uncle Iroh because she had no idea how to train Aang, etc. etc. Toph would be insufferable.

Who are these fans that cheered? How many of them, and why did they cheer? Vague fuzzy appeals to the bandwagon that can't be backed up are weak. Let's talk numbers.

She's also not as popular as you're trying to claim. F'rex on Fanfiction.net, you'll find only 5.1K stories with Toph as the main character vs. 9.8K for Aang, 16.7K for Katara, and an impressive 19.2K for Zuko. Toph is good for memes but lacks actual staying power. How about drawings? Toph has 57.3K Deviations, Aang has 72.5, Katara has 80.8, and Zuko has 91.4. Toph does not actually draw the attention a "Fan Favorite" that everybody cheers for would.

They're not "gotchas", you're not required to like Korra, or Toph. I just think at this point it's clear that what we enjoy and appreciate in stories and characters is fundamentally different.

I'm not going to debate about Toph's popularity. I'll just say that I've been part of the fandom from the start and I know that a sentiment like "It always put a smile on my face to see her humbled" is just starkly at odds with the general fan perception of the character. And you're not even accurately remembering the series; Iroh didn't "correct" Toph because she had "no idea how to train Aang" (Toph actually helped Iroh as much as he helped her).

As for FF.net and DeviantArt, @LindyAF is right that your sample there is really skewed by the demographic of those sites. They're heavily skewed towards female fans wanting to make fanfic/fanart of their favorite romantic pairing. That's why Katara and Zuko are way far out ahead, because Zuko/Katara has always been the most popular "ship" among female fans. It's not a meaningful indicator of popularity among the wider fanbase.

You realize this isn't an argument you can actually win?

If you want to pull out "different points in training" Korra's over the top because she was bending three elements at once as a five-year-old.

If you don't then she's over the top due to beating down three guys in her first five minutes of screentime compared to Aang taking multiple episodes to win his first fight.

Either way, you lose.

Oh sure. The scene where Korra is shown as a kid having already unlocked three elements is "over the top". That's part of why I like it. And I don't take it as some kind of knock against Aang.

The jump forward to the present is hardly over the top though, when you take into consideration all of the context that it's a test to show that she has mastered firebending, the three guys are unnamed nobodies, and Aang was doing much, much more badass things when he was 12. As a starting point for Korra's story, the White Lotus instructor is clear to point out that Korra still needs to unlock airbending and master the spiritual side of bending, setting those up as the shortcomings Korra has and the challenges she needs to overcome. I'm fine with that being the starting point for Korra's journey that we're shown.

Also, saying Aang "took multiple episodes to win his first fight" is just blatantly misrepresenting ATLA.

There's some other reasons for Korra's decline in viewship over time, especially the drop between the 1st Season and 2nd, as IIRC, the First Season was actually AIRED on TV, while the 2nd was moved to streaming only with very little fanfare or advertisement. I remember when it actually aired and it was a complete pain to watch the new episodes as the streaming at the time was... poor.

Season 2 aired on TV, but there was over a year gap between it and Season 1. Season 1 was relatively successful in a Saturday morning time slot, but Season 2 moved to a Friday night timeslot that wasn't as successful. They also floated around the actual air time, one night it could be 7 PM, the next week 8 PM, and next 7:30. If it aired at all, as there were weeks without new episodes. Nickelodeon did bugger all to promote Season 2, and at the end they did this thing where "if this Facebook post gets 10,000 likes we'll release the finale online before it even airs!" Then Season 3 aired its first half on television, two episodes a week. Halfway through they pulled it from the air and just started releasing episodes on Nick.com. It was all just an absolute mess.

I know. The wokeists were pissed.

Yes, thank you. Thematically Season 1 of Legend of Korra ends up with this kind of anti-woke progressivism message that I actually don't think the creators intended. Considering the series came out before the BLM movement started as that guy pointed out, it's surprisingly prescient.
 
Last edited:

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
Eh, I don't think the Equalists aren't anything related to BLM or 'Wokist' propaganda, just like how ATLA had used some historical context (in that case, how industrialized nations tended to colonize less technologically capable nations), LoK took how various militant groups tended to be -essentially- their own worst enemy by letting someone that would cause worse problems an easy route to power.

At least, that's how I've seen it.
 

The One Char

Well-known member
Eh, I don't think the Equalists aren't anything related to BLM or 'Wokist' propaganda, just like how ATLA had used some historical context (in that case, how industrialized nations tended to colonize less technologically capable nations), LoK took how various militant groups tended to be -essentially- their own worst enemy by letting someone that would cause worse problems an easy route to power.

At least, that's how I've seen it.
Korra is blatantly about the rise of the militant ideologies of the 30's and 40's.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Eh, I don't think the Equalists aren't anything related to BLM or 'Wokist' propaganda, just like how ATLA had used some historical context (in that case, how industrialized nations tended to colonize less technologically capable nations), LoK took how various militant groups tended to be -essentially- their own worst enemy by letting someone that would cause worse problems an easy route to power.

At least, that's how I've seen it.
They're related to it in the sense that the Equalists are a pastiche of Marxist revolutionaries of the early 20th century, and BLM and Wokist stuff are intellectually descended from Marxism.

Likewise Season 2 of Korra deals with theocratic authoritarians in a similar vein of the rise of Islamic fundamentalists in the mid 20th century. Season 3 deals with Anarchists, and finally Season 4 echoes Fascism.
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
My problem with the Legend of Korra was primarily that it didn't know what it wanted to do.

In the first season, it's domestic terrorism. In the second season, is political intrigue, which turns into a cartoon supervillain plot, and ends with a Godzilla battle--destroying the Avatar concept almost entirely. The third season is about more terrorism, but done somewhat competently. The fourth season went straight towards Nazism.

When you compare this to the original series, it's a disaster. The original series had a coherent plot from beginning to end, stretched over, what 4-5 seasons? The creators knew what they wanted to do with the character and the story and followed it. You had a consistent threat (defeat the Fire Lord) with several antagonists that helped to flesh out the culture and setting of the enemy.

People would (and should) expect the same with LoK.

Instead you had what felt like a rushed and unsatisfying conclusion to the first season, which really has little to no bearing on the rest of the series. The second season completely destroys the setting to refashion it and while that leads into the terrorism seen in the next season, it also ends in an unsatisfying conclusion. The third season is far better than the previous two and ends with a somewhat satisfactory conclusion. The final season is probably what the story SHOULD have been built for, but instead of four seasons, it was all shoved into one season.

What LoK should have done was start with season 4 and worked through the political disasters in the first two seasons to set up the fascist Earth Nation for the Third Season and then conclude it in the Fourth Season.

They're related to it in the sense that the Equalists are a pastiche of Marxist revolutionaries of the early 20th century, and BLM and Wokist stuff are intellectually descended from Marxism.

Likewise Season 2 of Korra deals with theocratic authoritarians in a similar vein of the rise of Islamic fundamentalists in the mid 20th century. Season 3 deals with Anarchists, and finally Season 4 echoes Fascism.

That's part of my problem with the franchise. They should have taken ONE of those theme and created a 4-season story out of it. Not try and address both ideologies. There was simply too much focus on trying to do all of this in one season.
 

Stargazer

Well-known member
My problem with the Legend of Korra was primarily that it didn't know what it wanted to do.

In the first season, it's domestic terrorism. In the second season, is political intrigue, which turns into a cartoon supervillain plot, and ends with a Godzilla battle--destroying the Avatar concept almost entirely. The third season is about more terrorism, but done somewhat competently. The fourth season went straight towards Nazism.

When you compare this to the original series, it's a disaster. The original series had a coherent plot from beginning to end, stretched over, what 4-5 seasons? The creators knew what they wanted to do with the character and the story and followed it. You had a consistent threat (defeat the Fire Lord) with several antagonists that helped to flesh out the culture and setting of the enemy.

People would (and should) expect the same with LoK.

Instead you had what felt like a rushed and unsatisfying conclusion to the first season, which really has little to no bearing on the rest of the series. The second season completely destroys the setting to refashion it and while that leads into the terrorism seen in the next season, it also ends in an unsatisfying conclusion. The third season is far better than the previous two and ends with a somewhat satisfactory conclusion. The final season is probably what the story SHOULD have been built for, but instead of four seasons, it was all shoved into one season.

What LoK should have done was start with season 4 and worked through the political disasters in the first two seasons to set up the fascist Earth Nation for the Third Season and then conclude it in the Fourth Season.

I sort of addressed this sentiment in the OP. I don't think every show has to follow the exact pattern that ATLA did in order to be considered "good". I mean, just take a contemporary show of ATLA's, Teen Titans. It largely followed different plots in each season. There was continuity, for sure, but it wasn't as tight and overarching as ATLA. And there's a lot of love for that show. It didn't need to be just like ATLA.

Similarly, I don't think LOK needed to be just like ATLA in this regard. In fact, I went into the show hoping it wouldn't just be the same as ATLA. Like I said at the start, it's valid if you just prefer the way that ATLA did things over LOK. But I gotta reject the notion that people should have expected the exact same approach with LOK, that failing to do so made it a "disaster".

My expectations were also tempered by how I was following the press releases and convention panels leading up to LOK's premiere, where the co-creators were clear that the show was conceived as just a 12 episode miniseries. Just from that I knew not to expect the same sort of long form story arc as ATLA.

One criticism I'll grant just taking the show for what it tries to be is that once they did decide to add more seasons, they could have done more to connect books 1 and 2. The events of book 1 are just kind of swept side to make way for for story of book 2, and it is rather jarring. The transition between the other seasons is smoother.
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
I sort of addressed this sentiment in the OP. I don't think every show has to follow the exact pattern that ATLA did in order to be considered "good". I mean, just take a contemporary show of ATLA's, Teen Titans. It largely followed different plots in each season. There was continuity, for sure, but it wasn't as tight and overarching as ATLA. And there's a lot of love for that show. It didn't need to be just like ATLA.

There are many forms a story can take. But once you set the expectation (Avatar), then you generally need to follow that expectation, unless people are ready for a change. The audience was not ready for that change, because they all liked Avatar and wanted more of it. And instead of delivering it in the manner of which their audience were accustomed, they completely biffed it.

Similarly, I don't think LOK needed to be just like ATLA in this regard. In fact, I went into the show hoping it wouldn't just be the same as ATLA. Like I said at the start, it's valid if you just prefer the way that ATLA did things over LOK. But I gotta reject the notion that people should have expected the exact same approach with LOK, that failing to do so made it a "disaster".

No, this is not about my "opinion", this is about what the audience expected. And when you decide to do a new series that's going to change everything about the setting, changing the story format at the same time is rather stupid. Especially because they decided to change the narrative so many times. First it was about revolutionaries, then it was about religious zealots, then it was about anarchism, and then it was about fascism.

And that's the core of their problem. They changed their story narrative three times from its original. Which means either the creators are clueless in retaining an audience, didn't care, or felt that the previous narratives failed.

My expectations were also tempered by how I was following the press releases and convention panels leading up to LOK's premiere, where the co-creators were clear that the show was conceived as just a 12 episode miniseries. Just from that I knew not to expect the same sort of long form story arc as ATLA.

That explains the first season. It does not explain the following three seasons.

One criticism I'll grant just taking the show for what it tries to be is that once they did decide to add more seasons, they could have done more to connect books 1 and 2. The events of book 1 are just kind of swept side to make way for for story of book 2, and it is rather jarring. The transition between the other seasons is smoother.

It's not just jarring, it's outright destructive.

Avatar had four seasons to explore the concept of balance and the idea of repelling an expanding imperial power. It explored both sides, the heroes and the villains. It had four seasons to show how it affected the entire world. It had four seasons to build up its characters and move them through the major narrative and their personal stories. Everyone talks about Avatar for two reasons; its characters and the setting. The actual story structure itself is really basic; defeat the evil emperor, restore balance to the force.

LoK however, didn't do that.

First, it changed the narratives and the antagonists four times. Now, you can do one or the other, but you can't do both. If you want to change narratives, then you need to have a constant antagonist that Korra must struggle against in different contexts. A good example of this is DS9; Dukat's role as an antagonist was constant, even if the political situations were not. Sometimes he was an ally, sometimes a foe, and sometimes neither. But he was always a rival. Korra struggles against no such thing.

And if the show didn't want a constant antagonist, then they needed a constant narrative. If for example, Korra defeated several antagonists as part of her greater war against say, the Equalists, that would at least produce a constant narrative for her and her friends to explore. You might even allow a narrative to change; the Equalists lead to the creation of say, the anarchists or the religious extremists. Instead, the show just rapid-shoots different narratives and villains, making it hard to keep track.

Second, by changing the narrative four times, it forced the characters to change motivations and goals four times. What motivated characters in the first season were not present in the second, a distant memory in the third, and completely forgotten in the fourth. The romance that people applauded in Avatar was dead before the end of the second season in LoK. And by season four, Korra's affection for a chick was almost completely out of left field.

That isn't to say the show did everything wrong. It didn't. It did a lot right. It had some constant characters and characters with constant motivations and behavior. But those were mostly secondary characters and NOT the main caste, who the audience formed the strongest relation to and were constantly asked to then try and accept quick shifts in motivation and behavior by the story. It doesn't work well.

I can see a fan of Avatar enjoying it, but LoK is terribly flawed and it's flawed because it lacked discipline and vision into what the show SHOULD be. And in my opinion, they clearly had no idea and decided to make it up as they went along.
 
Last edited:

Stargazer

Well-known member
There are many forms a story can take. But once you set the expectation (Avatar), then you generally need to follow that expectation, unless people are ready for a change. The audience was not ready for that change, because they all liked Avatar and wanted more of it. And instead of delivering it in the manner of which their audience were accustomed, they completely biffed it.

No, this is not about my "opinion", this is about what the audience expected. And when you decide to do a new series that's going to change everything about the setting, changing the story format at the same time is rather stupid. Especially because they decided to change the narrative so many times. First it was about revolutionaries, then it was about religious zealots, then it was about anarchism, and then it was about fascism.

And that's the core of their problem. They changed their story narrative three times from its original. Which means either the creators are clueless in retaining an audience, didn't care, or felt that the previous narratives failed.

No, I just disagree. I don't think there was some "need" to follow that expectation. I was part of the audience, I of course liked Avatar as one of my favorite TV shows of all time, but I didn't have that expectation. I was actually hoping there was going to be some sort of change, that it wasn't just going to be the same thing as ATLA all over again. Just how things would change, I didn't know, but I knew I wanted something different, and for the most part I was happy with what we got.

Would more of the audience have liked LoK if it had stuck closer to the pattern and formula of ATLA? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe there would be more people complaining it tried to do ATLA all over again and was repetitive, less original, or just not as good. Like @Aaron Fox said, to some extent LoK was always going to lose because it was going to be compared to a masterpiece like ATLA one way or another. At the end of the day, all I can say is I appreciate the stories that Legend of Korra does tell, taken for what they are. I'm not trying to speak for anyone else.

Avatar had four seasons to explore the concept of balance and the idea of repelling an expanding imperial power. It explored both sides, the heroes and the villains. It had four seasons to show how it affected the entire world. It had four seasons to build up its characters and move them through the major narrative and their personal stories. Everyone talks about Avatar for two reasons; its characters and the setting. The actual story structure itself is really basic; defeat the evil emperor, restore balance to the force.

ATLA had three seasons actually, though they were 20/21 episode seasons so it still had a higher episode count (61 for ATLA, 52 for LOK)

LoK however, didn't do that.

First, it changed the narratives and the antagonists four times. Now, you can do one or the other, but you can't do both.

Says who? Again, Teen Titans changed its narrative and antagonist with each season (well, Slade was the main villain for the first two seasons, but it was the HIVE and Brother Blood, Trigon, and the Brotherhood of Evil for seasons 3, 4, and 5, respectively). Nothing against Deep Space Nine, it's great and one of my favorite Star Trek series, but I don't take it as a standard that all other stories have to follow. It feels like you're prejudging LOK a lot just for what it tries to do and arbitrarily deciding it shouldn't have even tried to begin with rather than judging it for how well it did what it tried to do. I would say it's good at what it does for the most part, so apparently yeah, you can do both.

I can see a fan of Avatar enjoying it, but LoK is terribly flawed and it's flawed because it lacked discipline and vision into what the show SHOULD be. And in my opinion, they clearly had no idea and decided to make it up as they went along.

Most TV shows make it up as they go to one degree or another, with changing narratives and character motivations and goals as circumstances change, and some manage a great degree of success doing so. It's fine if you prefer shows that are more planned out like ATLA was, but it's not some universal standard that all shows have to meet.
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
No, I just disagree. I don't think there was some "need" to follow that expectation. I was part of the audience, I of course liked Avatar as one of my favorite TV shows of all time, but I didn't have that expectation. I was actually hoping there was going to be some sort of change, that it wasn't just going to be the same thing as ATLA all over again. Just how things would change, I didn't know, but I knew I wanted something different, and for the most part I was happy with what we got.

I really don't care what you were hoping for. Because that doesn't necessarily equate to good story telling. And what LoK did was not good story telling. I am not telling you that there is nothing redeemable about LoK, because that isn't true. The writers were still very talented. They had a lot of good story elements, a lot of good characterization, and a lot of good ideas. The problem is that this does not really overcome the problems that they had with the series as a whole.

Says who? Again, Teen Titans changed its narrative and antagonist with each season (well, Slade was the main villain for the first two seasons, but it was the HIVE and Brother Blood, Trigon, and the Brotherhood of Evil for seasons 3, 4, and 5, respectively). Nothing against Deep Space Nine, it's great and one of my favorite Star Trek series, but I don't take it as a standard that all other stories have to follow. It feels like you're prejudging LOK a lot just for what it tries to do and arbitrarily deciding it shouldn't have even tried to begin with rather than judging it for how well it did what it tried to do. I would say it's good at what it does for the most part, so apparently yeah, you can do both.

Question: What was the theme of Teen Titans?
Answer: Youths fighting against evil.

No matter which villains you bring up, either simple, complicated, or long and short term, they all followed this theme. They were the bad guys who broke the laws and endangered others. The Teen Titans were the ones who defeated them and upheld the law and morality. That was the overall theme of Teen Titans and it maintained that theme throughout. Now, there were episodes were certain other themes were brought up and the concept of what was lawful and moral were also challenged. But it was always about the theme of good vs evil.

What was Avatar's theme? Well, the overall theme was that of balance; of the spirit and the body. The physical world and the spiritual world. And that theme was expressed through the fighting of a great imperialistic force and its evil leader, who had destroyed that natural balance.

What was LoK's theme? Well, their overall theme was addressing the balance in a changing world. That's not a bad theme to have. But they did it with different villains, against different themes, and with new motivations and roles for its characters in each season. And while they did that, they also damaged the lore of the setting in the process.

The only redeemable parts of LoK were its last two seasons. And honestly, season four was the only really good season they had. They would have been better off with four seasons of that then with the LoK that we ended up with.






Most TV shows make it up as they go to one degree or another, with changing narratives and character motivations and goals as circumstances change, and some manage a great degree of success doing so. It's fine if you prefer shows that are more planned out like ATLA was, but it's not some universal standard that all shows have to meet.
[/QUOTE]
 

Stargazer

Well-known member
I really don't care what you were hoping for. Because that doesn't necessarily equate to good story telling. And what LoK did was not good story telling. I am not telling you that there is nothing redeemable about LoK, because that isn't true. The writers were still very talented. They had a lot of good story elements, a lot of good characterization, and a lot of good ideas. The problem is that this does not really overcome the problems that they had with the series as a whole.

You don't have to care about what I was hoping for. I also don't have to care about what you arbitrarily declare to be good storytelling and bad storytelling either, or what you think I as a member of the audience should have expected.

Question: What was the theme of Teen Titans?
Answer: Youths fighting against evil.

No matter which villains you bring up, either simple, complicated, or long and short term, they all followed this theme. They were the bad guys who broke the laws and endangered others. The Teen Titans were the ones who defeated them and upheld the law and morality. That was the overall theme of Teen Titans and it maintained that theme throughout. Now, there were episodes were certain other themes were brought up and the concept of what was lawful and moral were also challenged. But it was always about the theme of good vs evil.

Ehhhhh. That's a premise, not a theme, and a very vague one at that. If just good vs evil counts as a theme, that's what both ATLA and LOK were about too, since both were about heroes who fought bad guys who were seeking to harm others and extend their power in one way or another. And both casts were pretty youthful too. I would argue that the main themes for the story arcs of each season of Teen Titans were different, and each also revolved around a specific member of the team. IE season 1 with Robin, how close should you get to evil in order to defeat it? Season 3 with Cyborg, what does it mean to be human? Season 4 with Raven, can you change your own destiny? Etc.

What was Avatar's theme? Well, the overall theme was that of balance; of the spirit and the body. The physical world and the spiritual world. And that theme was expressed through the fighting of a great imperialistic force and its evil leader, who had destroyed that natural balance.

What was LoK's theme? Well, their overall theme was addressing the balance in a changing world. That's not a bad theme to have. But they did it with different villains, against different themes, and with new motivations and roles for its characters in each season. And while they did that, they also damaged the lore of the setting in the process.

The only redeemable parts of LoK were its last two seasons. And honestly, season four was the only really good season they had. They would have been better off with four seasons of that then with the LoK that we ended up with.

I disagree that LOK "damaged the lore of the setting". And I'm on the opposite end, I think seasons 1, 2, and 3 were all great, and I actually think that season 4 was the weakest of the bunch. Season 2 is perhaps the "messiest" though I still really like it.
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
You don't have to care about what I was hoping for. I also don't have to care about what you arbitrarily declare to be good storytelling and bad storytelling either, or what you think I as a member of the audience should have expected.

I'm not being arbitrary, this is fact. You can still like it. You can still enjoy it. You can still point out how the good might make it worth the bad. I like DB Super, but it's one of the worst Dragon Balls from a story perspective. From beginning to last.

Ehhhhh. That's a premise, not a theme, and a very vague one at that.

No, a premise is what the subject is about. A theme is the meaning that is extracted from the story. The premise of Teen Titans is young super heroes who fight crime. The theme is young heroes who fight evil and uphold the law. And each episode examines that theme either on a large or small scale. Deep or shallow.

If just good vs evil counts as a theme, that's what both ATLA and LOK were about too, since both were about heroes who fought bad guys who were seeking to harm others and extend their power in one way or another.

...Avatar was primarily based on some mix of Confucianism and Taoism. The whole point wasn't that the Fire Lord was evil, but that he upset the balance of the world. It was the Avatar's role in the story to restore the balance. Now, that does mean that the Fire Lord was wicked, as were many of his subordinates, but them being bad wasn't really the point of the story. The point was in the restoration of the balance.

LOK tried to do that, but failed at every opportunity. Season 1 was just underwhelming and ultimately a joke. Season 2 was better at building suspense, but then destroyed the settings lore, by not understanding the very themes of the Avatar in the first place, instead confusing the Abrahamic concept of good vs evil with Yin and Yang. Thereby changing the Avatar from what is more of a Buddha figure into Jesus. Order was changed into a good, creationist goddess, while chaos was transformed into an evil and destructive devil.

And from there, the entire concept of "the balance" was completely shattered. Both in having the physical and spiritual world merging and in the entire theme of the franchise. The former offered a possible, interesting change to the status quo. The latter pissed people off, because it shows that the writers had no damn clue as to what was going on. It disturbs me that you don't seem to understand this issue and you're a huge fan of the show.

And by the way, once they destroyed the theme in the second season, it left the audience confused as to how to interpret the theme from there. Because instead of having a Buddha character who tries to balance chaos and order, flesh and spirit--they instead had a character who was the literal incarnation of God walking around.


And both casts were pretty youthful too. I would argue that the main themes for the story arcs of each season of Teen Titans were different, and each also revolved around a specific member of the team. IE season 1 with Robin, how close should you get to evil in order to defeat it? Season 3 with Cyborg, what does it mean to be human? Season 4 with Raven, can you change your own destiny? Etc.

Those characters are the subjects of the story, not the actual themes. The overarching themes of the show was good vs evil. Now, you might have a sub-theme, that might explore something closer to the individual personal morality learned by one of the characters or something along those lines, but it was always in-line with the concept of good vs evil. Which is what I would expect, given that Teen Titans and most comic stories are the current incarnation of pulp stories, most specifically the very popular Shadow series, in which a masked vigilante battles criminals and spies with the theme being good vs evil.

I disagree that LOK "damaged the lore of the setting". And I'm on the opposite end, I think seasons 1, 2, and 3 were all great, and I actually think that season 4 was the weakest of the bunch. Season 2 is perhaps the "messiest" though I still really like it.

Then I'm sorry, you either don't understand the theme of the show you love (and hey, that's no crime) or you have incredibly bad taste (also not a crime). Season 2 outright destroyed the Buddha sort of figure that they had in mind when the show was created, instead trading it out for Jesus of Nazareth. Those are two entirely different philosophical views. The Avatar went from being the incarnation of balance to the incarnation of good, creation, and order.

Season 4 was the strongest for the audience, because it actually works with a historical and moral paradigm that established the 20th century. It was the essential creation myth of the modern United States and its role in the world. And while it's outdated and is falling apart, it works of deep and strong historical and moral themes. It should have been something that was built up from in the first season. Not a one shot that was clumsily used to close the series out.

Season 3 was the second best, because it presented the first real menacing antagonist in LOK. And for that, I would commend the writers. They also used that season to try and put some distance between the mess they'd made in Season 2 and had (at least for the purpose of function), the Avatar return to the Buddha role, rather than the Jesus role.

Season 2, is as I mentioned, a train-wreck that demeans the entire franchise through incompetence.

Season 1 was just underwhelming and uninteresting.
 

Stargazer

Well-known member
I'm not being arbitrary, this is fact. You can still like it. You can still enjoy it. You can still point out how the good might make it worth the bad. I like DB Super, but it's one of the worst Dragon Balls from a story perspective. From beginning to last.

And I disagree with what you think is a "fact". (As if there can be "facts" about whether or not a story is good or bad. Who decides that? Who decides the standards?)

No, a premise is what the subject is about. A theme is the meaning that is extracted from the story. The premise of Teen Titans is young super heroes who fight crime. The theme is young heroes who fight evil and uphold the law. And each episode examines that theme either on a large or small scale. Deep or shallow.

...you just restated the same thing. Crime is perpetrated by evil people breaking the law. Fighting crime is the same thing as fighting evil and upholding the law.

...Avatar was primarily based on some mix of Confucianism and Taoism. The whole point wasn't that the Fire Lord was evil, but that he upset the balance of the world. It was the Avatar's role in the story to restore the balance. Now, that does mean that the Fire Lord was wicked, as were many of his subordinates, but them being bad wasn't really the point of the story. The point was in the restoration of the balance.

The Fire Lord is evil. The Fire Nation is seeking to conquer the world, which is seen as a bad thing. Sure, it puts the world out of balance -- and throwing things out of balance, out of harmony, like that is bad and needs to be stopped. Balance is a good thing, something that is to be preserved and protected, and it's the Avatar's duty to protect that balance. The Fire Nation wiped out the Air Nomads, which is seen as an evil thing. Ozai abused his son by burning and disowning him, and he sought to wipe out the entire Earth Kingdom. Zuko says to Ozai's face that such treatment of his own son was "cruel and wrong"; he also found his father's plan "horrifying" and that's what finally motivated him to leave and join the Avatar to stop his father. The climax of the story was defeating the Fire Lord to stop him from carrying out that plan. Doing so was a step towards restoring balance, sure. Restoring balance meant defeating evil, so the point of the story was good fighting evil.

LOK tried to do that, but failed at every opportunity. Season 1 was just underwhelming and ultimately a joke. Season 2 was better at building suspense, but then destroyed the settings lore, by not understanding the very themes of the Avatar in the first place, instead confusing the Abrahamic concept of good vs evil with Yin and Yang. Thereby changing the Avatar from what is more of a Buddha figure into Jesus. Order was changed into a good, creationist goddess, while chaos was transformed into an evil and destructive devil.

And from there, the entire concept of "the balance" was completely shattered. Both in having the physical and spiritual world merging and in the entire theme of the franchise. The former offered a possible, interesting change to the status quo. The latter pissed people off, because it shows that the writers had no damn clue as to what was going on. It disturbs me that you don't seem to understand this issue and you're a huge fan of the show.

And by the way, once they destroyed the theme in the second season, it left the audience confused as to how to interpret the theme from there. Because instead of having a Buddha character who tries to balance chaos and order, flesh and spirit--they instead had a character who was the literal incarnation of God walking around.

Yes, I'm aware that people criticized Book 2 and the origin of the Avatar for moving away from a Daoist understanding of ying and yang and more towards traditional Western good and evil. And my own criticisms of Book 2 lie in how both Unalaq and Vaatu sort of wind up being uninteresting moustache-twirling, evil laughing villains.

However, when you say it's an "Abrahamic" concept of good and evil, I think you're showing a lack of understanding of Abrahamic religions. In those religions, certainly in Christianity, good and evil aren't equal. God is all-powerful and the creator of all things, while Satan is a creature of God who creates nothing and is a rebel against God; his ultimate defeat is guaranteed. Whereas in LoK, Raava and Vaatu are twin entities, locked in a cycle of one winning dominance over the other and getting to influence the world. Raava is never described as having created anything. She's one spirit, a powerful spirit with an important role, but not all-powerful, not sovereign. The Avatar was always supposed to be the incarnation of a spirit (the old ATLA website said it was the spirit of the world taking human form), and there's always been a savior aspect to the Avatar. But it's simply incorrect to say that LoK makes the Avatar out to be "the literal incarnation of God walking around" if you mean God in the Abrahamic sense.

Also, an important note about the Avatar is that they're actually not supposed to be a "Buddha character". Inspired by the Dalai Lama, yes, but not supposed to reach enlightenment, not supposed to completely detach themselves from the world. Don't take my word for it, take it from an Avatar, an Air Nomad Avatar no less:

"Many great and wise Air Nomads have detached themselves and achieved spiritual enlightenment, but the Avatar can never do it. Because your sole duty is to the world. Here is my wisdom for you: Selfless duty calls you to sacrifice your own spiritual needs, and do whatever it takes to protect the world."

Hmm. Protect the world? Sounds like a theme to me...

Those characters are the subjects of the story, not the actual themes. The overarching themes of the show was good vs evil.

And, as I showed above, good vs evil could be described as a theme of ATLA too. Heck, in the episode "The Fortuneteller" Aunt Wu flat out says that Aang's destiny is to be involved in a great battle, an "awesome conflict between the forces of good and evil."

Then I'm sorry, you either don't understand the theme of the show you love (and hey, that's no crime) or you have incredibly bad taste (also not a crime).

I think I understand things fine. I'm not a big fan of your taste either, buddy.

Season 1 was just underwhelming and uninteresting.

Sounds like a personal opinion. Though it's interesting that you gave season 4 credit for working with a "historical and moral paradigm", when season 1 did the same sort of thing.
 
Last edited:

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
And I disagree with what you think is a "fact". (As if there can be "facts" about whether or not a story is good or bad. Who decides that? Who decides the standards?)

Are we going to sit around and form a drum circle? Because that's generally where these sort of talks tend to lead. Yes, there are standards about what is good and bad story telling.



...you just restated the same thing. Crime is perpetrated by evil people breaking the law. Fighting crime is the same thing as fighting evil and upholding the law.

No, it isn't. Because it doesn't need to be criminals and do-gooders fighting for it to be a story about good and evil. It could be about two spies or two businessmen who stay within the law, but one is good and the other evil. There are a lot of ways that you can put a different subject to a theme.

The Fire Lord is evil. The Fire Nation is seeking to conquer the world, which is seen as a bad thing. Sure, it puts the world out of balance -- and throwing things out of balance, out of harmony, like that is bad and needs to be stopped. They wiped out the Air Nomads, which is seen as an evil thing. Ozai abused his son by burning and disowning him, and he sought to wipe out the entire Earth Kingdom. Zuko says to Ozai's face that such treatment of his son was "cruel and wrong"; he also found his father's plan "horrifying" and that's what motivated him to leave and join the Avatar to stop his father. The climax of the story was defeating the Fire Lord to stop him from carrying out that plan. Doing so was a step towards restoring balance, sure. Restoring balance meant defeating evil, so the point of the story was good fighting evil.

I KNOW the Fire Lord is evil. But his crime as far as the series is concerned is not that he's a colossal douchebag, it's that he broke the balance of the world. And he does it for evil motivations and through evil methods. But that is not what is at stake in the story; what is at stake is the balance.

Yes, I'm aware that people criticized Book 2 and the origin of the Avatar for moving away from a Daoist understanding of ying and yang and more towards traditional Western good and evil. And my own criticisms of Book 2 lie in how both Unalaq and Vaatu sort of wind up being uninteresting moustache-twirling, evil laughing villains.

So then how can you consider Season 2 to be the best? A personal favorite, I could understand that. What I don't understand is how you don't see this as a problem.

However, when you say it's an "Abrahamic" concept of good and evil, I think you're showing a lack of understanding of Abrahamic religions. In those religions, certainly in Christianity, good and evil aren't equal. God is all-powerful and the creator of all things, while Satan is a creature of God who creates nothing and is a rebel against God; his ultimate defeat is guaranteed. Whereas in LoK, Raava and Vaatu are twin entities, locked in a cycle of one winning dominance over the other and getting to influence the world. Raava is never described as having created anything. She's one spirit, a powerful spirit with an important role, but not all-powerful, not sovereign. The Avatar was always supposed to be the incarnation of a spirit (the old ATLA website said it was the spirit of the world taking human form), and there's always been a savior aspect to the Avatar. But it's simply incorrect to say that LoK makes the Avatar out to be "the literal incarnation of God walking around" if you mean God in the Abrahamic sense.

I'm aware of the differences, but my comparison remains. Western concept of good and evil is based in the idea that evil must be fought and defeated. That is an Abrahamic worldview, even if the mythologies of the two do not exactly meet up.

Also, an important note about the Avatar is that they're actually not supposed to be a "Buddha character". Inspired by the Dalai Lama, yes, but not supposed to reach enlightenment, not supposed to completely detach themselves from the world. Don't take my word for it, take it from an Avatar, an Air Nomad Avatar no less:

"Many great and wise Air Nomads have detached themselves and achieved spiritual enlightenment, but the Avatar can never do it. Because your sole duty is to the world. Here is my wisdom for you: Selfless duty calls you to sacrifice your own spiritual needs, and do whatever it takes to protect the world."

Hmm. Protect the world? Sounds like a theme to me...

My mistake, the Dalai Lama. That doesn't really do much to change the major problem by effectively turning Kora from Dalai Lama into Jesus of Nazareth. Those are incompatible philosophies. Just look at the disaster in philosophical themes as Dragonlance (and I love Dragonlance). Where they try and pass of literal evil and good gods as needing to be in balance. LOK basically did that for one season.

And, as I showed above, good vs evil could be described as a theme of ATLA too. Heck, in the episode "The Fortuneteller" Aunt Wu flat out says that Aang's destiny is to be involved in a great battle, an "awesome conflict between the forces of good and evil."

Which only shows that they always had a problem understanding their own chosen story philosophy from well before LOK.

Sounds like a personal opinion. Though it's interesting that you gave season 4 credit for working with a "historical and moral paradigm", when season 1 did the same sort of thing.

Why? The concept they had for Season 1 was fine. They just didn't do it well. They had 3 seasons of experience to do better by the time they came to Season 4. They also had the history, minor characters, and a greater degree of personal attachment to the characters than Season 1, with much less episodes, could have possibly of provided. Of course it was better.
 

Stargazer

Well-known member
Are we going to sit around and form a drum circle? Because that's generally where these sort of talks tend to lead. Yes, there are standards about what is good and bad story telling.

That's where claiming something to be a "fact" when it kind of isn't leads, sure. I'm not sure where your standards for "good and bad storytelling" came from and at this point I really don't see a reason to care about them.

No, it isn't. Because it doesn't need to be criminals and do-gooders fighting for it to be a story about good and evil. It could be about two spies or two businessmen who stay within the law, but one is good and the other evil. There are a lot of ways that you can put a different subject to a theme.

Or it could be a story about a boy and his friends trying to stop an evil emperor from destroying the world.

I KNOW the Fire Lord is evil. But his crime as far as the series is concerned is not that he's a colossal douchebag, it's that he broke the balance of the world. And he does it for evil motivations and through evil methods. But that is not what is at stake in the story; what is at stake is the balance.

"Balance" meaning the safety of the world, in this case. If the story is about defeating the Fire Lord, and the Fire Lord is evil, then the story is by extension about defeating evil.

So then how can you consider Season 2 to be the best? A personal favorite, I could understand that. What I don't understand is how you don't see this as a problem.

I never said season 2 was the best, in fact I admitted it may be the "messiest". I just still really like it, and do prefer it over season 4. If I had to choose a favorite it would probably be season 1.

I'm aware of the differences, but my comparison remains. Western concept of good and evil is based in the idea that evil must be fought and defeated. That is an Abrahamic worldview, even if the mythologies of the two do not exactly meet up.

My mistake, the Dalai Lama. That doesn't really do much to change the major problem by effectively turning Kora from Dalai Lama into Jesus of Nazareth. Those are incompatible philosophies. Just look at the disaster in philosophical themes as Dragonlance (and I love Dragonlance). Where they try and pass of literal evil and good gods as needing to be in balance. LOK basically did that for one season.

No, they didn't effectively do that. Jesus of Nazareth is the incarnation of the all-powerful creator deity. King of Kings, Lord of Lords, all of that. The Avatar is the union of a human with Raava, spirit of light and order. Not all-powerful, not creator of anything. And importantly, Jesus is God, while Korra is not Raava. This comparison you're making is simply incorrect.

Which only shows that they always had a problem understanding their own chosen story philosophy from well before LOK.

Maybe so, or maybe the "chosen story philosophy" of ATLA isn't quite what you were making it out to be.

Why? The concept they had for Season 1 was fine. They just didn't do it well. They had 3 seasons of experience to do better by the time they came to Season 4. They also had the history, minor characters, and a greater degree of personal attachment to the characters than Season 1, with much less episodes, could have possibly of provided. Of course it was better.

Well I thought that Season 1 managed a good degree of attachment by the final episodes - heck, I was invested in the characters by the third episode - but hey, that's just my opinion.
 
Last edited:

Bassoe

Well-known member
For example,
the Equalists claimed that benders got selected over non-benders for certain jobs (ie, Mako's job at the power plant just using his fire/lightning powers to provide electricity, or maybe an earth bender or could spend up construction by manipulating the earth to quickly dig trenches to lay down pipes or build foundations for buildings, etc).
Which makes perfect sense if you're a bit more paranoid.

It's almost like the actual conflict was between the wealthy and the poor, with some of the wealthy using their money to support a puppet organization among the poor consisting of 'look at that other group of poor people we've scapegoating as responsible for your suffering, go fight them rather than us'. With said fighting between factions of the poor being used by the status quo leadership as a justification for totalitarian crackdowns and acquisition of increased authority 'for the duration of the emergency'.

Oh, wait, that's exactly what happened.

Allegories to the General Motors conspiracy to kill LA's streetcars to drum up business for their cars or the modern 'everything must be a subscription service/you will own nothing and be happy' corporatist agenda would've been much more topical than allegories to communist revolutions and racism.

Make it so that in republic city, the average household appliance isn't powered by an outlet and electrical grid, but has a small steam boiler and/or a wheel which is either hollow and filled with water or made of carved stone. Bending is the power source.

Wealthy industrialists like Hiroshi Sato don't like this. Not out of ideological hatred for benders, but because they see a market niche/opportunity for increased control. If suddenly, nobody could bend, there'd be a market for centralized alternatives and rather than selling one product per customer, then having no further business from that customer unless it broke, you'd be able to sell electricity or fuel in increments for as long as they used your product.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top