We're all balking at this, but like half this site used to be on the "audiences are too dumb to handle any amount of moral ambiguity! All media must be blatant morality plays or else everyone will get turned into fascists form watching Breaking Bad!!!" We kinda asked for this
I mean yeah? They wanna make money and they focus grouped this to be unprofitable. That's not what you were arguing, as far as I understand. You were writing that hexbear users thought only the most obvious morality plays should be left in, and that this wasn't one (we kinda asked for this).
I disagree, I think it was an obvious morality play, and now I don't get the point you're making.
Edit: sorry that was petty, was in a bad mood when I first typed that out.
Lemme reframe what I was saying, "morality play" wasn't really the right term to use. There were people on this site who seemed to think fans always emulate the negative attributes of the characters in the media they consume, not matter how blatant the writers try and make it that these are flaws, or even if they evolve past the flaws. The fans always end up emulating the douchebag version of the character so we need more media where the protagonists are upstanding people from chapter 1 to give people better figures to admire.
The only places I’ve seen this talked about is Rick and Morty and Breaking Bad and, while I am a Lib because I have not finished either so I am literally speaking without investigation, what I’ve seen of Rick and Morty makes me think they REALLY like pushing the “Rick is a cool superhero science man who doesn’t care about dumb stuff like fee fees” angle, even if it’s done in an ironic tone. And neither piece of media has any actual, persistent and memorable examples of actually good behavior depicted in a positive light, as far as I know, which is HUGE, because if you just mock someone and then leave it at that, then people are going to interpret that however the fuck they will and 80% of the time it’ll be assuming you just thought murder was good or whatever. Because having bad things happen and then not providing even a glimpse of what a good thing could have looked like without mocking that too will result in viewers just assuming the point is nihilism.
Rick and Morty is a good example of people trying to write flawed characters and mostly failing. They've made attempts to flesh Rick out, including an extended side plot about him going to therapy, but it seems like every time they get close to doing something interesting with it they end up reversing it, and I suspect it's probably because the network wants to keep milking the IP, and having Rick actually resolve some issues would effectively be the end of the show so they're holding off on that till they hit a season where they barely make any profit and decide it's time to close up shop.
Breaking Bad has it's flaws but overall I think it handled things a lot better. It does become glaringly obvious what a terrible person Walter is becoming as the show goes on and he pays dearly for his crimes in the end. I think the number of fans who still celebrate him as a hero is overstated, every fan I've met of the show IRL is fully aware he's the villain. Yeah there are dumb Reddit 14 year olds but they have their head so far up there ass I don't think you can make thing blatant enough for them, really that's the actual problem here, no piece of media can be made misinterpretation-proof, I've seen people almost willfully misinterpret works where the author basically delivered a monologue at the end laying out their intended message in excruciating detail. People are going to read into something what they want to read, you really can't stop them and you can't really hold authors accountable for it, the only real solution would be just to not make media anymore.
No need to apologise, it wasn't perceived as rude on my end.
There were people on this site who seemed to think fans always emulate the negative attributes of the characters in the media they consume, not matter how blatant the writers try and make it that these are flaws, or even if they evolve past the flaws. The fans always end up emulating the douchebag version of the character so we need more media where the protagonists are upstanding people from chapter 1 to give people better figures to admire.
Yeah I remember some of those discussions. UlyssesT was often very active in them... It could get difficult not to share the consensus opinion. Generally those kinds of discussions suck because they end up being very black/white. I don't like it. I get what you were trying to say, which was also why I asked about your point - I was wondering if I had misunderstood something. I agree with you on the point that some users here have some very definite opinions on how entertainment should be, and those opinions are kinda weird/silly because yeah, then you do end up with removing Sokkas sexism and the like.
Like I unironically kind of (not really but kind of) think that and also Sokka’s arc literally WAS that, we’re balking at it BECAUSE they’re removing the obvious morality play
Okay, "Morality Play" wasn't the right term to use. But there are a lot of people who think fans only ever emulate the bad features of protagnists regardless of whether those are presented as flaws they grow out of or not, so protagonists in media should always be morally upright people from chapter 1.
I might be confused on this but doesn't a morality play involve some flaw or sin causing a tragedy? So Sokka would have to be sexist and then get karmically punished for that?
Yes, and ironically the original Avatar was actually a pretty good example of a show that wasn't ambiguous in its messaging. However coked up media executives are dumb and always going to take the worst interpretation of everything.
Yeah looking at your comment I think I agree the earlier naive interpretations of “no protagonists should be bad” is dumb, but clarity is really important in media and artists do assume viewers are able to see their message too often
The Hexbear discourse on this seems to be reflective of boarder online discourse about, which does influence things. Producers do read twitter, or at least they used to, sadly.
I think it's more how liberalism does not like to create media that truly grapples and discusses hard topics outside of cis white female sexism experiences, whitewashed talks on racism (i.e. Malcolm X extremism) and shit within the suburbanite bubble.
For being a kids cartoon I have to say Avatar was a good introduction to the harm of war, propaganda that is fed by an empire, and themes on humility and respect.
yes, big, we're all looking for the guy who did this, energy.
(but breaking bad is bad actually, not because it is too ambiguous, but because it constantly indulges the audience and never challenges identification with a ressentiment-filled loser.)
We're all balking at this, but like half this site used to be on the "audiences are too dumb to handle any amount of moral ambiguity! All media must be blatant morality plays or else everyone will get turned into fascists form watching Breaking Bad!!!" We kinda asked for this
Yeah and the original story of Sokka was an obvious morality play.
They had him get owned and learn that women aren't weak like four times. He learned to actually fight in a dress and make up. It was not subtle.
what if they do this scene anyways?
If he wasn't sexist before then what's the point of the scene? They're not going to have a scene where Sokka explores his gender identity.
Idk but that doesnt mean they won't do it anyways.
They're still gonna have it, because in their brains a dude being weird about women warriors isn't sexist. I'm lathing it right now
Yeah and Hollywood exec dorks always take the worse interpretation of things
I mean yeah? They wanna make money and they focus grouped this to be unprofitable. That's not what you were arguing, as far as I understand. You were writing that hexbear users thought only the most obvious morality plays should be left in, and that this wasn't one (we kinda asked for this).
I disagree, I think it was an obvious morality play, and now I don't get the point you're making.
Yeah I don't either I'm and idiot
Edit: sorry that was petty, was in a bad mood when I first typed that out.
Lemme reframe what I was saying, "morality play" wasn't really the right term to use. There were people on this site who seemed to think fans always emulate the negative attributes of the characters in the media they consume, not matter how blatant the writers try and make it that these are flaws, or even if they evolve past the flaws. The fans always end up emulating the douchebag version of the character so we need more media where the protagonists are upstanding people from chapter 1 to give people better figures to admire.
The only places I’ve seen this talked about is Rick and Morty and Breaking Bad and, while I am a Lib because I have not finished either so I am literally speaking without investigation, what I’ve seen of Rick and Morty makes me think they REALLY like pushing the “Rick is a cool superhero science man who doesn’t care about dumb stuff like fee fees” angle, even if it’s done in an ironic tone. And neither piece of media has any actual, persistent and memorable examples of actually good behavior depicted in a positive light, as far as I know, which is HUGE, because if you just mock someone and then leave it at that, then people are going to interpret that however the fuck they will and 80% of the time it’ll be assuming you just thought murder was good or whatever. Because having bad things happen and then not providing even a glimpse of what a good thing could have looked like without mocking that too will result in viewers just assuming the point is nihilism.
Rick and Morty is a good example of people trying to write flawed characters and mostly failing. They've made attempts to flesh Rick out, including an extended side plot about him going to therapy, but it seems like every time they get close to doing something interesting with it they end up reversing it, and I suspect it's probably because the network wants to keep milking the IP, and having Rick actually resolve some issues would effectively be the end of the show so they're holding off on that till they hit a season where they barely make any profit and decide it's time to close up shop.
Breaking Bad has it's flaws but overall I think it handled things a lot better. It does become glaringly obvious what a terrible person Walter is becoming as the show goes on and he pays dearly for his crimes in the end. I think the number of fans who still celebrate him as a hero is overstated, every fan I've met of the show IRL is fully aware he's the villain. Yeah there are dumb Reddit 14 year olds but they have their head so far up there ass I don't think you can make thing blatant enough for them, really that's the actual problem here, no piece of media can be made misinterpretation-proof, I've seen people almost willfully misinterpret works where the author basically delivered a monologue at the end laying out their intended message in excruciating detail. People are going to read into something what they want to read, you really can't stop them and you can't really hold authors accountable for it, the only real solution would be just to not make media anymore.
No need to apologise, it wasn't perceived as rude on my end.
Yeah I remember some of those discussions. UlyssesT was often very active in them... It could get difficult not to share the consensus opinion. Generally those kinds of discussions suck because they end up being very black/white. I don't like it. I get what you were trying to say, which was also why I asked about your point - I was wondering if I had misunderstood something. I agree with you on the point that some users here have some very definite opinions on how entertainment should be, and those opinions are kinda weird/silly because yeah, then you do end up with removing Sokkas sexism and the like.
mods! MODS!!!!
MODS I SPIL MY JICE MODS HELP HELP HELP
Like I unironically kind of (not really but kind of) think that and also Sokka’s arc literally WAS that, we’re balking at it BECAUSE they’re removing the obvious morality play
Okay, "Morality Play" wasn't the right term to use. But there are a lot of people who think fans only ever emulate the bad features of protagnists regardless of whether those are presented as flaws they grow out of or not, so protagonists in media should always be morally upright people from chapter 1.
That half of the site was wrong
I might be confused on this but doesn't a morality play involve some flaw or sin causing a tragedy? So Sokka would have to be sexist and then get karmically punished for that?
Yes, and ironically the original Avatar was actually a pretty good example of a show that wasn't ambiguous in its messaging. However coked up media executives are dumb and always going to take the worst interpretation of everything.
Yeah looking at your comment I think I agree the earlier naive interpretations of “no protagonists should be bad” is dumb, but clarity is really important in media and artists do assume viewers are able to see their message too often
I don't think Hexbears have any influence on these things
The Hexbear discourse on this seems to be reflective of boarder online discourse about, which does influence things. Producers do read twitter, or at least they used to, sadly.
If you say so
I think it's more how liberalism does not like to create media that truly grapples and discusses hard topics outside of cis white female sexism experiences, whitewashed talks on racism (i.e. Malcolm X extremism) and shit within the suburbanite bubble.
For being a kids cartoon I have to say Avatar was a good introduction to the harm of war, propaganda that is fed by an empire, and themes on humility and respect.
This is what happens when people refuse to read any literary theory. Sorry folks, only reading Lenin is not going to help you understand art.
yes, big, we're all looking for the guy who did this, energy.
(but breaking bad is bad actually, not because it is too ambiguous, but because it constantly indulges the audience and never challenges identification with a ressentiment-filled loser.)