>If you kill him, you'll no better than him/the pacifist route is the only right one
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
Tropes you hate in?
>If you kill him, you'll no better than him/the pacifist route is the only right one
|
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
You will never get revenge on your bullies
the best revenge is to live well 🙂
the networks push that shit on em. they don't WANT to do it. at least not back in the sane era they didn't
remember when we thought, someday, us-types will be in charge of the standards? we'll get our day and we'll get our say.. and things will at least briefly be how we want them
why didn't that happen
>If you kill him, you'll no better than him/the pacifist route is the only right one
I generally agree that this is a bad trope, but the fact Ozai lost everything, including his fire powers that he was born with, and spent the rest of his life rotting in a jaile cell is still a pretty good way to go about it.
The trope only really sucks when it hamfists a protagonist into letting a villain cause more harm. like Batman catching Joker and having him sent to jail, only to break out and go on another murder spree. If they stayed stuck in prison then it wouldn't be as much of an issue.
That's the prison system's fault, not Batman's. He's doing them a favor by bringing him in at all. Batman owes you nothing.
>That's the prison system's fault, not Batman's
Ok, but Batman will literally go out of his way to let Joker live.
That's his rule. No killing. He's not obligated to break his moral code.
The frick out of here. butthole wants to fight for the greater good but only when it’s convenient for him. Greater good means killing the evil fricker. Letting him live just means more victims and ruined families ie the very shit that happened to him that and made him Batman.
You are correct, Batman is trying to not play judge, jury, and executioner and respecting the judicial system as best as he can as a vigilante. However, after like the third or fourth time Joker breaks out it just becomes an excuse. Not just for Batman, but for everyone involved. You'd think at some point a judge would sentence him to death, or a cop guns him down, or even the normie inmates just hang him in prison. Batman's overall viewpoint is understandable, but it's ruined by bad writing. Joker's crimes either need to be toned down to the more cartoony versions of himself, or writers need to stop relying on a corrupt judicial system as a crutch, otherwise it's just absurd how the Joker can do basically whatever he wants and basically gets a time out.
Very well put. I'm not opposed to more serious takes on Batman and his characters, but the bad writing and desperate justifications to keep villains coming back just cheapens everything for me.
Batman doesn't exist
>>If you kill him, you'll no better than him/the pacifist route is the only right one
>I generally agree that this is a bad trope, but the fact Ozai lost everything, including his fire powers that he was born with, and spent the rest of his life rotting in a jaile cell is still a pretty good way to go about it.
>The trope only really sucks when it hamfists a protagonist into letting a villain cause more harm.
So, depending on how her arc is resolved, did Aang frick up by letting Azula live?
I ignore the comics myself because they suck ass, so I'd say it's fine
>the comics imply Sozin being against gay marriage was why he was evil and a tyrant
>the whole air bender genocide is more of a secondary afterthought
What a fricking train wreck
I don't have a problem with characters like Batman who have a no-kill policy keeping it. They're freelance police essentially bringing in criminals for due process, not executioners. (Realise this distinction may be lost on the Septics).
I hate it when the characters slaughtered their way through goons to get to the bad guy and then captures them though.
You are so goddamn stupid.
That wasn't even the point of Aang's conflict in these episodes. He's the one going around saying "but I don't want to kill!" and his own past lives, ***including a past Airbending Avatar***, are all telling him "look man, we get it, but this is more important than your personal pacifistic worldview and you need to kill this dude".
He didn't pacifist his way to the end because it was the "morally correct thing to do", it was because an ancient lion turtle gave him a cheat code to pull it off. Every major source of morality in the show's canon was pretty clear that the "morally correct thing to do" was to kill the dude.
>reddit spacing
It's better than having Lily Orchard Brain Rot.
2016 utterly ruined what was already a degenerating site, fricking zoomers.
That's not reddit spacing, you idiot.
Same assblasted poster
Being a c**t about it will not change the fact that you're ignorant and stupid.
You can't even format text, fart smeller
nah those ideas were only introduced for aang to shut down and prove his way is the right way through lion turtle bullshit
True
At what point is killing anything not going to bite you in the ass later?
according to the Queen of Fables, it's when you eliminate the whole bloodline to prevent revenge killings.
when nobody likes the person you're killing and all would see it as morally ok to kill them
You could argue that killing Firelord Ozai would only make him a martyr for many of the Fire Nation. They're shown to be a proud, nationalistic people from what we see and they willingly wiped out the Air Nomads knowing that it would mean taking on the Avatar. With that in mind I feel like Iroh was wrong in thinking the Avatar being the one to kill the Firelord would end things more peacefully, considering that as a culture the FN already saw the Avatar as an enemy to be vanquished.
While no one can deny the Lion Turtle bit was half assed, Aang taking away Ozai's bending and imprisoning was probably the better option, with Ozai being humiliated and broken rather than dying and having his death be twisted into "a heroic final stand in glorious 1v1 combat against the Avatar who would stand against our duty to unite the world under one banner!" or whatever nonsense they could spin it as.
The Fire Nation loved Ozai though. The Ember Island play gets a standing ovation after he kills the avatar.
>At what point is killing anything not going to bite you in the ass later?
Honestly it seems like letting them live is far, far more likely to bite you in the ass because you know, they'll be alive to do something about it. What are they gonna do if they're dead?
>What are they gonna do if they're dead?
It's not about what he was going to do, it's about what his supporters are going to do.
I never really liked ATLA's example of pacifism to be honest. It never felt like the showrunners were willing to confront the fact that pacifism just doesn't really work in the kind of fictional world they created, specifically the internal logic.
>And it isn't like pacifism can't be used as the main moral a cartoon setting revolves around, look at Wander over Yonder. Wander always saves the day through love and non-violence and disarming his foes because the very being of the world is designed so that can be something able to be achieved.
Meanwhile ATLA's internal logic from day one isn't compatible with pacifism. Which is pretty ironic considering that both Aang and Wander pull from Buddhism, they're both meant to be a "modern Buddha" but only Wander succeeds at it. Meanwhile Aang has to get cosmic cheat codes because of plot contrivance, and then TLOK proceeds to basically throw his pacifism further under the bus.
Manga like Vinland Saga and Trigun both tackle the meaning of pacifism and non-violence very well.
You can't criticize Aang for getting cheat codes and then praise Trigun when the main character has superhuman abilities no one else in the series has.
>Vinland Saga
>Tackles the meaning of pacifism and non-violence very well
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
What about characters who have a reason for not killing that doesn't involve morality? I can't think of any actual examples off the top of my head, but I assume there's at least one out there.
Literally the only problem with this ending was Aang being handed the solution instead of figuring it out himself by using everything he's learned on his journey.
yeah but the problem with "Aang figuring it out by himself using what he learned" is that you'd more or less have to rewrite ATLA to further involve this as a part of Aang's character arc
ATLA does Aang a total disservice in how much of a plot device he comes across as. You could replace him with an object or an animal and not much actually changes. Had Katara not existed, logically speaking much of her character would belong to Aang.
>sole survivor status
>pent-up aggression/resentment towards the Fire Nation for taking away his family
>learning a forbidden technique and discovering a dark side to his people/element
>embodying hope
What's so bizarre about this story arc is that there was actually a perfectly valid reason to suddenly have Aang to be reluctant about killing. He literally just died/experienced death.
Him suddenly overthinking death/killing the Fire Lord because "What I experienced horrible and I don't want to do that to someone else" made more sense than "Muh Air Nomad" culture, because we saw Gyatso was absolutely willing to murder people if need be.
The biggest problem with Season 3 of ATLA is imho it starts focusing way too much on Zuko. Season 1 and Season 2, Aang was unironically fine as a character and protagonist.
>>If you kill him, you'll no better than him/the pacifist route is the only right one
This was never stated in ATLA. Everyone thought Aang should kill Ozai, including the previous Avatars. Aang killing Ozai would represent the end of the Air Nomad's culture.
I'm writing a story where the MC doesn't get revenge solely because he wasn't strong enough to beat the guy
The thing is that if Aang kills Ozai he proves that airbender philosophies weren't able to stand the test of time, and as the LAST airbender, he'd be committing cultural suicide.
See, the problem with "but if Aang killed, the Air Nomads die a second time" is that it tends to forget that ATLA also never really confronts that the Air Nomads aren't in a place to be salvaged culturally nor are they in danger of cultural suicide...because they're already dead. Barring extracanonical material like the comics (which more or less reinforce my point, Aang barely found scraps), ATLA fricks up by never really confronting that Aang can't preserve his culture because Aang is twelve fricking years old: no twelve year old monk would really know enough about his culture that he would be in a position to preserve it, let alone it should be his responsibility in the first place.
Seriously think about how much Aang WOULD know about the Air Nomads and their way of life at the age of twelve: not much!
>the Air Nomads aren't in a place to be salvaged culturally nor are they in danger of cultural suicide...because they're already dead.
The show's title says otherwise.
The title doesn't mention them at all though.
What does the TLA of ATLA stand for?
The Last Airbender.
Spotted the ESL whose country called it "Legend of Aang".
No. See
Air Nomads and Airbenders are synonyms. The creators verified that all air nomads are airbenders. They did not have any nonbenders like the other nations because their population was so small compared to the others and so the Universe made them all benders to balance things out.
But not all airbenders are air nomads.
They are.
>inb4 Legend of Korra
Those were Air ACOLYTES.
Read what I said again, and read in forwards.
homie, I know you're trying to use some square/rectangle logic, and I'm telling you that does not apply here.
So you're telling me ALL airbenders are air nomads?
NTA but yes
They were until Legend of Korra gave the ability to a bunch of randos.
I like the idea that there are non-airbending kids, but since they can't airbend they're not accepted as fellow nomads in the temples and are instead given up in the EK, and a generation or two they descendants just assume they're regular EK folk. That way when the KORRA BULLSHIT happens the new airbenders are direct descendants of the nomad children who were given up.
Makes sense. You can't tell me there was never any peasant girls who swooned over some airchads passing through their village.
Imagine watching a guy literally fly and *not* wanting to frick his brains out, it's basically impossible
Does that mean he shouldn't try?
It certainly means Aang SHOULD try, it's just that Aang's arc should have involved him accepting that although his culture is dead, it doesn't mean it can't be reborn. Ideally, Aang would recreate the Air Nomads by taking in the culture of the remaining nations as well as what little he learned himself. The New Air Nomads would be very different from the ones that existed before the war, but that's just how life is sometimes. You gotta move forward.
I like Book 3 but Book 3 is honestly where the show peaked and also started to fall apart in some areas. The neglect of Aang is one of these areas where it falls short.
More critically, ATLA never truly resolves the core theme of the story: that everything is connected. I think had Ozai's defeat involved this, maybe Aang defeating him with nonviolence could have come across better.
book 3 also had too much filler imo
Filler is a misused word, it implies padding that means nothing: if anything, Book 3 is guilty of meandering and wasting time better spent developing the cast and characters. I like the quiet/soft moments and low stakes adventures in Book 3, they have their value...but in hindsight, it was a mistake coming after the perilous shit that was Book 2.
>I like Book 3 but Book 3 is honestly where the show peaked and also started to fall apart in some areas.
>book 3 also had too much filler imo
>Book 3 is guilty of meandering and wasting time better spent developing the cast and characters.
Honestly, if Book 3 had episodes setting up Mai and Ty Lee's heel-face turn, Azula's descent into madness, why Ozai is a such a meance that only Aang could defeat, and the Lion Turtle, would anyone have any problems with it?
>go talk to past lives
>hey, what were the Air Nomads like in your time
>hey previous Air Nomad avatar, gimme a rundown of your culture
And he's done
He can literally see into the past through his past lives. He can live through the entire history of his people if he wants to.
The problem with bein' the last of anythin', by and by there be none left at all. The Airbenders were already dead and forgotten as far as most of the world was concerned, one child wasn't going to change that.
>villain steals character's superpowers
We all know he's gonna get them back, so it just seems like a waste of time. Besides, it's a cheap way for the writers to inject a sense of peril instead of coming up with a cool villain who can take the character on.
I think it would be fun if instead of removing the hero's powers, the villain GIVES a power to the hero, something really messed up. After all, why risk the hero getting their powers back when you could just handicap/cripple them instead?
Ooh, that'd be interesting. Like those Red Kryptonite stories where the villain mutates Superman into something hideous.
Examples?
>Examples?
It's just extremely common in general for main characters of Chinese fantasy to get crippled and lose all their powers, only for the experience of having lost all their power to provide some enlightenment that causes them to regain everything and make them even stronger.
Also, it's common for them to begin with a revenge plot where the main character has their "innate potential" stolen by some butthole, then they stumble upon some overpowered artifact or technique that lets them make up for it.
I thought it was extremely common in general for main characters in Chinese fantasy to get goofy sounding ultra super-powerful god attacks and be rapists
>goofy sounding ultra super-powerful god attacks
They typically fight by pulling out dozens of techniques and/or magical treasures until they win the fight. And if that doesn't work, they level up in the middle of battle and just overwhelm the enemy.
Also, there isn't THAT much rape, and it's often done for life-saving or self-preservation reasons if the MC is doing it.
>life saving rape
Then again, the israelites are currently involved in their second genocide in self defense.
Oh man, you'd fricking HATE Chinese fantasy.
Captain Ginyu was a good version of the power stealing trope, at least with him it was capable of backfiring and had limits, he was able to steal power he couldn't use
>Air Nomads don't kill! I'm a pacifist!
>Nomad former Avatar tells him to kill
>his own temple was littered with bodies from soldiers the slaughtered monks killed
>he has killed people himself
>this moral conflict literally never came up before
>BUT MY CULTURE!!!! I NEED ANOTHER WAY!!!!
I actually hate that they bullshitted someway for Aang to not have to kill. I think that was going to be the final lesson for him as the Avatar.
1. That there is evil in the world that cannot be reasoned with.
2. The Avatar must the the good of the world over his personal beliefs
>he has killed people himself
When?
>inb4 North Pole
That was the ocean spirit.
The Northern Air Temple? There's no way the all soldiers thrown off the mountain survived.
>It doesn't matter if you kill him, we can easily bring people back to life so death doesn't actually matter.
>we won...at what cost
>oh wait, no cost
>hooray!
>bullshit misunderstanding that could easily be explained is the main reason the rest of the events in the story happen
>"I've never killed anybody. Attacking me is an act of suicide."
>Its a "One of the main cast gets cloned" episode
>The clone is shown to be a exact copy of the cloned character
>The rest of cast treat the clone like dirt, the clone is forced to change their name
>At the end the clone is killed in a horrible way or even faces a fate worse than fate
>The rest of the cast shrug their shoulders and ignore it ever happened
Has there ever been an instance of the clone becoming a villain character instead of dying immediately? If not, someone should write that.
Star Trek: Lower Decks. Maybe.
Ben 10's Albedo, though not necessarily a clone by conventional standards
>a fate worse than fate
What did he mean by this?
Avatar was not an instance of your trope. It was about Aang sticking to his moral beliefs despite everyone telling him the right thing to do is kill Ozai. You'd think Cinemaphile would be in favor of this given how often it jerks of that Captain America quote about not compromising yourself for easy wins.
If only there was an obvious third option besides killing him or using deus ex machina energy bending.
I guess this is pretty much an Avatar thread
What happened in the Azula novel? Is she still batshit insane?
All her minions abandon her and she goes to hunt them down. She gets lost and ends up at a shrine that is really a spirit that feeds on people's negative feelings and replaces them with good feelings. The only problem is Azula is psychologically incapable of accepting happiness and keeps rejecting the happy illusions which drives the spirit bonkers and kicks her out.
They also backpedal on her minions. In the last trilogy they were in, they were depicted as deranged mental patients that Azula freed. But now they are nonconforming strong women who were wrongly put in there by their evil traditional families who would not accept them for who they are.
All in all, a big fat nothing, unless you like seeing Azula suffer and Ursa in a bikini.
>she's still running around as a nutcase
Can Azula just find peace and settle her overpowered firebending ass down with a nice woman/man in obscurity already?
I know she's popular, but these things that go nowhere towards closing out her story just to milk her are getting annoying.
Comics are fluff, anon. There's an animated movie coming out in a year where the gaang are adults. Do you actually think adult Azula isn't going to be in it?
>Comics are fluff, anon. There's an animated movie coming out in a year where the gaang are adults. Do you actually think adult Azula isn't going to be in it?
Assuming Azula is the main villian, how powerful do you think she'll be, and what do you think her final fate will be?
>what do you think her final fate will be?
I could see her having a final moment of clarity and dying to save Zuko from some attack.
Unfortunately, Korra existing kinda limits what you can do with her.
>Can Azula just find peace and settle her overpowered firebending ass down with a nice woman/man in obscurity already?
Funny because there's a panel with all the characters Azula wants to love her, and Ruon-Jian is there when he never interacted with her and focused all his attention on Mai at the beach. The comic team clearly meant it to be his friend, Chan, whom Azula had a crush on, but the comic producers didn't know the difference. Not surprising considering it's the same team that forgot Pakku already told Sokka and Katara that he married their grandma in the finale but had him tell them again in the comic set in the south pole.
didn't Azula casually throw Chan away and team up with her crew to wreck his shit for fun when she spooked him by being autistic? why the hell would the comic writers think there was anything more there between Azula and a stuck-up throwaway character than the girl trying to be normal and fit in that it was shown as?
Because she liked him and got mad at him for rejecting her like everyone else in her friend circle did. Sorry your zucest fanfic isn't canon.
>zucest fanfic
what does Firecest have to do with me asking why the comic writer would think Azula would for some reason still be thinking about a prissy gay she immediately moved on from and whose house she gleefully wrecked in the same episode he was introduced in? he was such a nothing character that the comic apparently didn't even get the right guy ffs
I was mostly joking since you seem really peeved at the idea of Azula still being miffed about getting rejected by her first crush. It ain't that big of a deal unless you're a shipper.
bro, you're the one trying to make it a whole thing. I just think it's a really weird addition that makes no sense and I'm genuinely wondering what the thought process would have been that such a nobody would have been put in like he was a character anyone in or out of universe would care about? did they just go to Azula's wiki page and look at the relationships section and add whoever to fill panel space?
The theme was about people in Azula's life who rejected her. That's it.
I really hope azula doesn’t become like Harley Quinn, where they take a great side villain, try to make her sympathetic and remove what made her good in future works
She's always been sympathetic
My fear is that the writers will give Zuko the W in a fight against his superior sister to end her plotline
But not to the point where it absolves her or her crimes and redeems her
>She's always been sympathetic
That was not the case until the finale. Up until that point she had been a huge b***h to everyone with zero remorse.
>My fear is that the writers will give Zuko the W in a fight against his superior sister to end her plotline
Honestly, I think it is more likely they continue to give her buffs and unearned power-ups so she can remain a real threat.
I think people would have been fine with the ending if the Lion Turtle and energy building had been a two episode arc or something.
The Wan 2-parter in Korra taking place in ATLA would have made all the difference. You would just have to cut the Painted Lady and Nightmares and Daydreams to make room for it in season three.
The Wan two parter was shit.
It sets up Lion Turtles having the power to give and take bending away and therefore eliminates the "ass-pull" critique of the finale. You personal opinion of it is irrelevant.
What I meant by two parter is, have a two parter actually explore energy bending/bending in general/spirituality of things. The "lol Lion Turtle's did stuff" was something that really damaged the overall lore of the show and wouldn't have helped the ATLA finale anymore than it did. Energy bending two parter could have also helped Aang with the whole "blocked chakra thing" which is another big criticism of the finale having him land on a rock and then showing the chakra clearing. Your solutions solves nothing and has nothing to do with what I am saying.
Your idea makes the ending obvious and removes the stakes. The Wan backstory tells you the origins of bending and doesn't ruin the surprise of the LTs being able to pass that ability on to the avatar, making the energybending a cool surprise while also having build-up. It solves the biggest complaint people have with the finale.
>Your idea makes the ending obvious and removes the stakes.
No it doesn't. You can explore energy bending also in the context of understanding his chakras and letting go being all part of his ultimate journey. Have him go on a walkabout and extend the exploration of what he needs to do with the fire lord. You can easily make it not obvious.
Simply having Lion turtle Wan stuff makes the ending obvious too. So you're literally criticising yourself.
>finale's conflict is aang not wanting to kill the firelord and struggling to find a nonlethal way to stop him
>2-parter from earlier introduces way to take someone's bending away
>Gee, I wonder how this is going to go fellas!
It's pretty obvious, my guy.
The Wan 2-parter does not show the Lion Turtles can pass energybending onto the avatar and thus keeps it a surprise.
That is not what I described at all. I am saying that the problem with the Lion turtle is, that in the show it is a small aside right near the end. You could have a two parter delve into spirituality and energy bending without being as obvious as just "lol take it away". I think season 3 needed more episodes anyway. But you keep misrepresenting what I am saying.
>The Wan 2-parter does not show the Lion Turtles can pass energybending onto the avatar and thus keeps it a surprise.
It shows that bending can be given/taken away actually.
I know what you are saying and I'm saying you don't need it to make the finale work.
>It shows that bending can be given/taken away actually.
Not by the avatar.
>I know what you are saying
I mean the post just before shows that you aren't.
>I'm saying you don't need it to make the finale work.
But you did say that the Wan shit would help it. I am not saying that the finale doesn't work just I think you could have made a good episode exploring those themes.
>Not by the avatar.
Yet it is still shown and prominent in those episodes.
I am not coming at this from the perspective of "OMG THE FINALE 100% needs to be fixed". I am coming at this from a perspective of, a spiritual walkabout episode would have been a good way to discuss stuff and explore stuff instead of the little stuff we got. It could have easily made it more satisfying. That's all. But this conversation has grown stale tbh. Take care.
I understood you just fine.
>Yet it is still shown and prominent in those episodes.
It being prominent but not showing it as something the avatar can do is my entire point on why it improves the finale. It sets up the energybending while not telegraphing that it is how Aang will win the conflict. It works great.
I feel like so much of this morality is born out of the comic book format influencing cartoons. You have 23 pages to tell a story and if a villain is good, why kill them off? Joker surviving his first appearance was an editor change in the last panel saying he's alive, just. Don't kill off your characters for commercial purposes just got morphed into this. Irl people pretend they have hard moral positions on death penalty etc when Western government routinely kill people by extra judicial means when they decide to drone strike someone.
For me the worst trope is:
>Villain has a point.
>Conflict is ultimately a misunderstanding.
>Villain goes too far.
>Hero suddenly becomes justified in beating villain.
>Vague status quo maintained.
Amon had a point about benders vs non-benders but oh wait he's actually an evil blood bender out for revenge and in the end you get a non-bender on Republic City council so that's all the problems sorted I guess...
The contrived conflict thing is the worst part of that trope though. The Marvels movie did this really badly:
>Carol killing Supreme Intelligence caused Hala to go into Civil War which some how stripped it of all its resources and slowed its sun.
>Bad guy tries to strip resources from planets connected to Carol.
>At the end there is a throwaway line to them helping Hala.
>And Carol just goes and restarts Hala's sun like it is nothing.
>All the conflict was pointless.
That is something a lot of people don't even know, that the only reason most old comic book heroes like Batman don't kill their villains is because having to think up new villains for every issue was starting to become a major hassle. In iirc early Batman took out villains with no remorse, and even his aversion to guns is a relatively recent addition to his character.
>because having to think up new villains for every issue was starting to become a major hassle
Reminds me of the X-Men.
>Get sick of coming up with origins for characters and powers.
>Children of the Atom, mutants!
So much stuff is influenced by this thought, creative shorthand or commercial issues.
>a relatively recent addition to his character.
Yeah same with how Superman radically changed over the years. But to use the X-Men example again:
>Originally X-men being hated wasn't that much of an allegory.
>Instead Marvel reused ideas that worked.
>Spider-Man being shit on constantly endeared him to people. Hulk was misunderstood. Avengers and FF had problems with their image at times.
>X-Men had the same problem.
>Claremont is the one who really pushed the allegory.
>(And Claremont even retconned his own run with the Classic X-Men edits/back up stories.)
I also think a lot of the problems with villain morality is simply:
>You can't expend much story explaining everything about them so use shorthand.
Especially in a comic but even in a movie it is hard to do. So when a villain has a point you still need to contrive a situation to engineer the conflict.
The Amon thing was partly because he was supposed to be a 2 season villain they had to wrap up at the end of season 1 at the last second since they were suddenly told they might not get a second season.
Originally it WAS supposed to be actual spirit powers he had and he would have been bailed out at the end of season 1 by a group of spirits, and then would presumably lead into the Vaatu thing in season 2
It makes sense for Aang since he's a kid and a monk. But in general there is a point where killing a villain is something a hero should do. Not in this case.
>tropes
TV Tropes and influencers have done irreparable harm to media literacy.
Wow so air buddhist monks are pacifists who wont kill??? Color me shocked!!
But they did kill though.
>female causes drama without any explanation, when she does it's too late
>She's forgiven because vegana
That’s true to life.
That's why I hate it.
>show portrays humans versus aliens or magic or monsters
>the humans are ALWAYS in the wrong
>even if the monsters regularly try to kill everyone, or take over the world
>it's the humans that are the bad guys for defending themselves, or trying to do SOMETHING to stop them
Jake Long, Juniper Lee, etc. It's always the same schlock. I'd gladly side with the Huntsclan if the alternative was demons and dragons murdering people left and right, and the """good guys""" clearly aren't doing their damn job, if these things happen constantly.
This shit always happens and it's infuriating. Dragon Prince is more or less the same.
>magical monster community recreates the trail of tears and the rape of nanking, because some guy practiced dark magic once
>because dragons kept killing his people
This, I hate this biased “nature is always good” message they always put when really it can be even more brutal for no reason
tbf, on the other hand you sometimes have stuff that treats humans as way too special.
Yeah, going too far in either direction isn't advisable.
I believe it's a matter of context.
>nice loser character gets superpowers/becomes rich/gets a confidence boost
>immedietly becomes a jackass/borderline/actual supervillain
Hate this trope.
Plus you forget that in the end they lose their powers.
That's just the standard, shitty "oh crap we've changed the setting and it isn't the literally last episode so we don't have to think of how to write new stories? CHANGE IT BACK NOW NOW NOW" thing that happens all the fricking time.
Don't forgot the bullshit "They realize they were happier without it" part.
>killing the killer excuses your killing
>pacifist route
It's not even pacifistic since you still resort to violence
I like Aang resolution for Ozai. Not killing him wasn't really about a morality or being the better person, as much as about Aang deciding his own path as an Avatar. Even he says during the convo the world would be better off without him, but Aang wants to be selfish and true to his beliefs.
It is a bad trope for many shows though.
Timeline displacement replacements
It's can done right (albeit rarely) but I despise the whole "Replace this character with an alternate version/time displaced version of themselves and pretend as if they were the same character period"
Aang letting Ozai live is Objectively the best and only good outcome, if he's dead he dies a martyr and Zuko is remembered as a illegitimate king that staged a coup d'etat against his own famliy and a traitor to his nation and will be stuck dealing with revolutionaries and Ozai loyalist.
But if Ozai lives the people can see for a fact that He and Azula aren't fit to rule, where as Zuko is shown to be a powerful yet merciful Fire load essentially ordained by god with his connection to the Avatar.
It should've been done better at least. They should've built up the energy bending thing, you know damn well it was a copout at the end.
Zuko won* an Agni Kai against the insane ruler for the throne. That's completely legitimate by Fire Nation culture.
*technically he would have lost when he got folded by a lightning blast aimed at someone else, but no one needs to know that