Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Misc. TV Series' started by Thread Manager, Jun 24, 2013.
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]386953[/split]
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]384029[/split]
So is this where we wait for the thread to tick over so we can avoid the fact that Korra was more then willing to kill, or at the very least seriously injury, a man she thought was defenseless? Nice.
I would argue, but I am reminded of some advice from one of my favorite literature professors in college:
"Sure, you can argue against someone who thinks Moby Dick was Nazi propaganda, but why would you waste your time on something so dumb."
So, I will take that advice here.
It is beautiful, but you clearly haven't read what is written. It is easy to act like you are above it all, especially when you don't actually have a response.
"Show us some proof."
*Korra tries to kill a defenseless man.*
"Poster is crazy. No need to respond."
It's not an act, baby, because you are setting that bar pretty low
That... is a quote I must and will use, especially when I want to enforce Godwin's law.
On another note, I wish more literature professors were like your literature professor.
You guys remember KingMadness and his obsession with Korra's butt? Good times.
Didn't he get banned for it?
I think C. Lee only banned him from the thread.
He was easily one of the coolest professors, and people in general, that I've known
Either you are being really dense, haven't read all the post, or are simply trolling at this point.
It is easy to avoid the point when you attack the poster and not what is actually written. Do you not understand the rules of this thread?
You can do that? I didn't know that.
Your idea of 'attacking' is, I see, as loose as your idea of what a psychopath is.
I already covered that the psychopath thing was an overstatement, but my point that Korra is a violent, confrontational person stands. Especially when you take into account how Aang responds to even more drastic situations at a much younger age.
Korra wanted Tarrlok's blood because he made her feel inadequate. She wanted to prove her superiority. And that is how Korra handles arguments and emotional situations. With violence. That is why she puts on her display at the end and starts taunting a man she considers defenseless.
If she isn't trying to hurt, possibly kill Tarrlok, after she believed she had defeated him, what was she doing with the firebending attack that the end? While Tarrlok was crawling away?
Well, as long as you took back the psycho part, I guess.
I would just like to note that both Tarrlok and Amon where straight up evil and most likely deserved their fate.
Yes Korra went after him like she did because she's Korra. She doesn't take crap from people. You can sum up who she is with the first line we hear from her:
"I am the Avatar and you have to deal with it!"
Yes Aang was different but that's because of his personality and how he was raised. Korra is different, and I'm ok with that.
Tarrlok and Amon were not evil. They were young children who were tortured by their father. They were turned into monsters, but the were far from inherently evil. Why Tarrlok ends it like he does. Ozai, Azula, they are evil. Yakone was evil.
On, Korra, yep that is how she is. She is violent and willing to hurt or possibly kill a man she believes is unarmed. Except when Amon is around. Then, it is less dealing with it and more running away. This is followed by some self pity in the snow before Aang fixes everything.
Whatever the case may be, I think we can all agree that Korra still has a ways to go in her journey to become a mature, balanced Avatar. We'll see some of that addressed in the next season for sure.
Has there been much speculation or news surrounding what Books 3 and 4 will be called/be about? Again, I haven't been following this thread or anything Korra-related for very long.
Yes, they were. They didn't believe what they were doing was necessarily evil, but it was, and they were.
Which is exactly what pushed them to the point of being evil. There's a saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Just because they thought what they were doing was for the greater good, doesn't mean it makes them any less evil.
Who's to say Ozai wasn't just as tortured as Amon and Tarrlok were? We know Azula and Zuko were. Why are you so quick to call Azula evil? At a young age we saw that she was conniving and manipulative, but that doesn't mean she's evil. Hell, if anything her breakdown in the finale showed that she suffered from some sort of mental illness. One could argue that she wasn't evil, she was merely pushed to that point by Ozai.
But he wasn't unarmed. He's a bender, he's a skilled martial artist. His body is his weapon. You're taking a lot of leaps in your argument for the sake of doing so, and it shows. At least base your argument in the reality of this show, not your loopy interpretation.
I'm beginning to miss king madness.
If you want to be technical, Amon and Tarrlok were operating under Chaos and Law, respectfully. Good and evil were on a sliding scale betwen Chaos and Law. Amon was Chaotic evil while Tarrlok was Lawful evil.
Doesn't surprise me. I've seen plenty discuss her rack.
No word on Books 3 or 4. Barely anything on book two.
I don't dislike the character of Korra. I like her, she has a lot going for her, and her faults add plenty of character. I just find it odd that people defend her actions because they are fans. I agree, Korra has a ways to go.
Which is why the end of season 1 bothered me. In theory, it is a perfect set up for Korra to find herself. Left with only the ability to bend air, she'd have to truly embrace her spiritual self. Great setup for a season entitled Spirit. And then they added those last couple of minutes. It is shame.
Amon's stance was actually very sound imo. The benders have created a class system they rule. It is inherently flawed. His methods aren't great. But that isn't what I am referring to.
There intentions and actions are meaningless. They were give little chance from the start. Their father tortured and taught them a way of life. Turned them into something wretched. They are Frankenstein's monster, not Frankenstein.
Do you blame the vicious dog who has been trained to fight who attacks a child? No, I blame those that taught the dog to be that way. The same for young children who are raised and brainwashed into believing that killing others for their God is the "right way" to live their lives.
They aren't evil to me. The men that taught them that are the evil ones. That is why, when give the chance to live and start over, Tarrlok makes the decision that he does. He knows they can't be normal. Would a evil person take his life and the life of the one person he loves in the whole world, to essentially protect others? I don't think so. That wasn't a Hitler in the bunker, afraid of what would happen when the Allies got their hands on him.
There is absolutely no indication that Ozai was raised in a hostile or bad environment. If anything, his childhood was like Azula's.
And while Zuko was tortured, Azula was treated like she walked on water. So spoiled, to the point that even her father realizes she has gotten a bit of out hand near the end. This is the little girl that enjoyed torturing her little brother, and would not embrace a loving mother. Her mental state breaks imo, because she can't handle not being on top. The Golden child who couldn't possibly lose. Once her little world was shattered, she lost it. Like the athlete who has trouble adjusting after their playing career is over. Some turn to gambling, others drink and drugs. Not good.
When is the last time you saw the scene? Here it is again, starts at the :35 second mark.
After she tosses him and does her big ol' Earthbending smash, which is completely unnecessary, she specifically says he has no water. For a waterbender against another bender, this is being unarmed and she knows it. She sees him crawling away in fear, and she is still walking him down.
Now does she Earthbend him into the ground like Aang? You know, block his arm movements to completely subdue him? No, she decides she is going to attack a man she believes can't fight back with fire.
Please tell me how he isn't apparently disarmed by Korra? Korra has no idea he can bloodbend, much less without a full moon. The entire point of the scene is for Tarrlok to look helpless, unarmed, to setup his bloodbending. It is the exact reason why Korra says the line "What are you going to do now? You're all out of water pal". The dialogue is there for a very specific reason, as is Tarrlok's crawling away and Korra's stalking of her prey. Because without water, against another bender, he is unarmed. And then, when Korra is about to do some serious damage, he does the one thing he doesn't want to do, and uses bloodbending. And the audience is in complete shock.
So who exactly is basing their argument in reality, and who is using loopy logic?
I don't see that scene playing out any differently than how Katara would have handled the fight. Korra just seems to act like a typical Southern Water Tribe teenage girl to me. I don't see a problem w/ it. You can't compare her to Aang because the Airbender Nomads were non-violent by nature. They come from two completely ideologies.
Katara was given that crossroads. Given it with the man that killed her father. A much more emotional situation. We saw how that turned out. Aka, Aang was right again.
General ideologies of different people doesn't make something right imo, nor does it define every individual. Iroh is a fine example of this. He grew up in the same fire nation as his brother. He isn't like him in the least.