Legend of Korra Book 4: Balance |OT| A Feast of Crows

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is it weird that I'm expecting this series to end with it looping around to the beginning of Wan's time and it's all just one big time loop?

For some reason, I've been expecting that shit since Book 3 ended.

Time loop. Wouldn't even make sense, just...time loop.
 
Ready for Friday!

SLaAijf.png

I can't make a Bingo with anything I could realistically see happening. Korra bending Platinum ruined the one I thought the most possible (horizontal one).
 
I would love a show set in the Avatar universe of regular benders living day to day. Maybe do have a huge war going on, but keep it extremely personal where the guy has to leave his family and join the war. Then it turns into the Saving Private Ryan beach scene, only instead of bullets it's like flying rocks and lightning.
 
Have regular guns actually been invented in the avatar universe? Or were they written off as useless since the cops could just drop your lead out of the air?
 
The issue isn't the US as much as children television. I'm sure there are some children anime that might have guns but I doubt they'd be more than a tool in the background and not actively being used for war/revolution.

The US has no issue depicting violence, they have issues with sexuality
 
The issue isn't the US as much as children television. I'm sure there are some children anime that might have guns but I doubt they'd be more than a tool in the background and not actively being used for war/revolution.

The US has no issue depicting violence, they have issues with sexuality
Sadly.
 
Things that were edited out on Cartoon Network include scenes of intense combat violence (ex. almost all shots of pilots, including main characters, in their cockpits before having their machines destroyed); cold-blooded or brutal murders that are non-mobile suit related (ex.
Siegel Clyne
getting shot by ZAFT soldiers loyal to Rau Le Creuset and Patrick Zala); all references to the fact that the Living CPUs need to take performance enhancing drugs; and most notoriously, handguns being sloppily and inconsistently transformed into neon-colored lasers, dubbed "Disco Guns" by fans, for the majority of the show's run. Also, there was little to no use of the words "kill" or "die" in the middle of the series airing. Since most of the series had been edited by Williams Street before broadcast, Cartoon Network changed very little in terms of content allowance. However, the airings of the final two episodes were left mostly unedited, with only a few elements being affected—namely the guns used by Azrael, Patrick Zala, and one of the ZAFT soldiers (which was given neon-colored lights in certain but not all of the image frames), airbrushing the naked Flay's body in the final episode to avoid showing her cleavage, reducing the amount of blood shown, editing the character's lines; to remove either inappropriate language or controversial lines, and the removal or altering of flashbacks of graphic assassinations. The Canadian version debuted on YTV's Bionix block in September 2004 at 9:30 p.m. where it got a better reception and aired comparatively uncut, with almost all of the material listed above intact.

In Japan, it occupied the Saturday 6 p.m. timeslot on MBS and TBS, widely considered a prime timeslot.

So yeah I'd say that gun violence in kids programs aren't exactly welcomed in America.
 
If there were guns in avatar, they'd have to be invisible.

mQYvzpBl.png



This has nothing to do with legality issues. The dolphin comparison is so completely out there that it doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm trying to argue.

A more apt comparison would be how JK Rowling established that Dumbledore was gay after the Harry Potter series was over. No one argued that what she said wasn't canon. The arguments were about how Dumbledore's sexuality wasn't explictly mentioned in the books.

It's still her story, her characters, and just because she has chosen to share it with millions of people doesn't mean that she loses all authority on it. We are free to criticize but that doesn't mean we can simply disregard their ideas about their own creation by declaring it not canon.

You think that TLOK has too many logical inconsistencies from A:TLA but not everyone sees it that way. Quality of a work is highly subjective. What is and what isn't canon is not based on an individual's perception of what is the best version of the story. Heck, there's tons of derivative Sherlock Holmes' novels, films, tv series, etc. out there that deviate in some way from the original canon established by Doyle.
 
This has nothing to do with legality issues. The dolphin comparison is so completely out there that it doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm trying to argue.

A more apt comparison would be how JK Rowling established that Dumbledore was gay after the Harry Potter series was over. No one argued that what she said wasn't canon. The arguments were about how Dumbledore's sexuality wasn't explictly mentioned in the books.

It's still her story, her characters, and just because she has chosen to share it with millions of people doesn't mean that she loses all authority on it. We are free to criticize but that doesn't mean we can simply disregard their ideas about their own creation by declaring it not canon.

You think that TLOK has too many logical inconsistencies from A:TLA but not everyone sees it that way. Quality of a work is highly subjective. What is and what isn't canon is not based on an individual's perception of what is the best version of the story. Heck, there's tons of derivative Sherlock Holmes' novels, films, tv series, etc. out there that deviate in some way from the original canon established by Doyle.

Funny, I heard plenty of people rejecting Dumbledore being gay because homos are ew and other such well founded reasons.

The point of the dolphin thing is to irrevocably prove that authors do not have full authority over their work. Just because they say it, that doesn't mean it is so. So how do we measure the extent of their authority? Well, that's for you to decide, but for my part, after thinking very long about it, I've decided they don't have any more than anyone else. As I said, stories are just mental constructs. Anyone can manipulate them to how they like.

And I don't think I ever suggested that other people can't have their own versions of canon. Like Gotchaye said in the last page, I'm just talking about my version. The authors and you and anyone else can have whatever other version they want.
 
Funny, I heard plenty of people rejecting Dumbledore being gay because homos are ew and other such well founded reasons.

The point of the dolphin thing is to irrevocably prove that authors do not have full authority over their work. Just because they say it, that doesn't mean it is so. So how do we measure the extent of their authority? Well, that's for you to decide, but for my part, after thinking very long about it, I've decided they don't have any more than anyone else. As I said, stories are just mental constructs. Anyone can manipulate them to how they like.

And I don't think I ever suggested that other people can't have their own versions of canon. Like Gotchaye said in the last page, I'm just talking about my version. The authors and you and anyone else can have whatever other version they want.

Stories don't appear out of nowhere. They were the ones that created the Avatar world. You wouldn't have a "canon" to begin with if they hadn't laid down the groundwork first.

Your ideas are still derivative of theirs regardless of whether or not your version of the story is "better".
 
You can't say something is non-canon just because you dislike it. You can, however, ignore it's entire existance and never acknowledge it again.
 
Stories don't appear out of nowhere. They were the ones that created the Avatar world. You wouldn't have a "canon" to begin with if they hadn't laid down the groundwork first.

Your ideas are still derivative of theirs regardless of whether or not your version of the story is "better".

And TLA is derivative of other things. There are an infinite amount of combinations to make, but the material in which to make stories is limited. Every idea that appeared in TLA had appeared somewhere else before. All story making is taking one idea and connecting it with another, but there are no truly new ideas, no more than there are other kinds of elements than what the periodic table says there are, from which every material in the known universe is made. New things can still be made, but the material in which they make it is old. This is what all story makers do, whether we're talking about authors making their own fiction, or fanfic writers who are using only material from a source.

The only real difference is to make an actual and whole story like LoK is vastly more difficult than me modulating the existing story (which in this case is just cutting out everything post TLA). There is a magnitude of more ideas to connect and make function, where as I'm just seperating ideas and trashing them, without having to worry about modulating before or after a certain point. My job is easy, compared to Bryke's.

But I'm not sure where you're going with this though. Suppose I agree with your post here, that I'm somehow being derivative in a way that the source creation is not rather than it just being a difference of degrees in difficulty. The debate I thought we were having is whether there is something illegitimate about my own personal canon. What is your basis that just because my idea is derivative that it means it's canoncy is illegitimate simply to my own mind? Yes, I derived my canon from theirs. And?
 
The word canon implies the existence of an authoritative body which determines its scope. That's kind of the point. Canon is not doctrine or a mode of interpretation. Canon is merely the 'official content'. Canon determines what we analyze not how we analyze it. Authors are simply determining which of their stories will be 'interacting' with each other; so that we know which material should be internally consistent and which need not be.

Authorial intent =/= canon. These are completely different things. JK Rowling saying she intended for Dumbledore to be gay is not the same as which Harry Potter related books are in the official canon and which are not. There is no discrepancy in both accepting her list of canon materials and disputing that there is enough material within that canon to support her intended conclusion. George Lucas has a pretty complex canon if I recall correctly. The films exist as part of their own individual canon of material, and then some of the books exist as part of an "Extended Universe" which also includes the movies. This is useful because it allows the book authors (of which there are many) to know which material they should be drawing from and adhering to, but it also doesn't retroactively force continuity onto the old movies or the upcoming future movies.
 
I think some clarification is needed for some of the terms.

By "Korra Dies" do we mean, she dies, but come back somehow or she stays dead. Is getting thrown into Spirit Oblivion count as dying?

Also, setting up a contradiction in one column would be tough for BINGO.
 
I think some clarification is needed for some of the terms.

By "Korra Dies" do we mean, she dies, but come back somehow or she stays dead. Is getting thrown into Spirit Oblivion count as dying?

Korra Dies = Korra dies and gets reincarnated or will in the future
Avatar Cycle Broken = Korra dies in Avatar State and nobody will ever bend all elements again
 
The word canon implies the existence of an authoritative body which determines its scope. That's kind of the point. Canon is not doctrine or a mode of interpretation. Canon is merely the 'official content'. Canon determines what we analyze not how we analyze it. Authors are simply determining which of their stories will be 'interacting' with each other; so that we know which material should be internally consistent and which need not be.

Authorial intent =/= canon. These are completely different things. JK Rowling saying she intended for Dumbledore to be gay is not the same as which Harry Potter related books are in the official canon and which are not. There is no discrepancy in both accepting her list of canon materials and disputing that there is enough material within that canon to support her intended conclusion.

Under that definition, it seems you agree with me, but I'm not sure.

The purpose of the ongoing debate is that I am asserting I have my own canon. My own personal collection of what material I accept in the Avatar universe and what I reject. For my own tastes, LoK is noncanon. Kinvara, from what I can tell, is insisting that the original creators have some kind of authority that I have to accept. I deny that authority. And it's not that I deny that Bryke have their own canon, and since they are the most widely known Avatar writers, most people take that canon as their own. But at the same time, there is nothing preventing me from making my own in favor of theirs.

Would you agree that's in line with what you're getting at?
 
Under that definition, it seems you agree with me, but I'm not sure.

The purpose of the ongoing debate is that I am asserting I have my own canon. My own personal collection of what material I accept in the Avatar universe and what I reject. For my own tastes, LoK is noncanon. Kinvara, from what I can tell, is insisting that the original creators have some kind of authority that I have to accept. I deny that authority. And it's not that I deny that Bryke have their own canon, and since they are the most widely known Avatar writers, most people take that canon as their own. But at the same time, there is nothing preventing me from making my own in favor of theirs.

Would you agree that's in line with what you're getting at?

ED: I also thought about this under a fluidity of the English language perspective, in that the word 'canon' may be taking on a new meaning in the context of fans using it to reflect their opinions concerning fictional media content, but because the word is still used for its original definition and purpose by actual content creators and businesses, I think it's more appropriate for a new word or term to arise to describe what fans are feeling/believing.

No we just disagree. I agree with Kinvara that the original creators have a centralized authority that viewers cannot have. The origin of canon is from a particular religious and historical context. The early christian church hierarchy was determining which books would be official and which would not. It was not a question for individual members, it was a question for the leaders of the faith who were accepted as having the inherent authority to make those kinds of decisions. The authoritative bodies of other sects and denominations made different decisions about what to include in the biblical canon, but in no sense was the canon ever seen as a personal or individual decision. That was the whole point of the canon in the first place; to have an absolute authority decide what must be accepted as official to avoid continued personal disagreement/fighting. Otherwise every individual member would have their own unique list of what they considered canon and the church would have no way to police its own communal identity and internal consistency. Discourse and doctrine would be impossible.

In the content creator context, the question is a non-issue because there are no legitimate disputes over hierarchy or source of authority; there's nothing resembling the church structure and consumers are not part of some larger organizational body. There's a group of creators who are the only possible people with the inherent authority to make a decision regarding the canon. You could have the equivalent of a Catholic/Protestant split if co-creators split up after the first series and they both created spinoffs simultaneously. Then you might have two people with seemingly equal claims of authority making canonical claims that are inherently in opposition. But presumably they would both accept the canonicity of the original series which would make it part of the undisputed canon.

By the very definition of the word only Bryke and Co. can promulgate a canon. You can't have your own canon because it would imply you have an equal claim of authority to make those decisions. Different people don't have different canons, different authoritative bodies have different canons. The authority to decree is implicit to canon making; perhaps you object to the idea that anyone should have that kind of authority, but in that case you're more rejecting the very concept of canon itself. The term I usually hear thrown about is 'headcanon', which I think gets across the inherent contradiction between the official canon and an individual's own personal ideal/belief about what they wish the canon actually was.
 
You can't say something is non-canon just because you dislike it. You can, however, ignore it's entire existance and never acknowledge it again.

Eureka Seven doesn't have a sequel.

I do however believe that "my own canon" is as childish as you can get. You're claiming superiority over the hard work of a team that just wanted to entertain you.

Its completely ok that you don't like, and you can point out what you didn't like, and make some good criticism.You can just never watch it again, and no one is going to take the original that you love from you.

"I love Avatar, but the Legend of Korra kinda failed for me, its not a very good sequel" is much better than "Imma make my own imaginary ending and that's what ill believe!"

The Naruto thread has some fine examples of how bad it makes people look.
 
Opening the spirit portals and uniting the spirit world and normal world again after 10,000 years I would say sorta reaches legend status for me.

You mean the one thing she had no thought of doing before the big bad basically forced her into the issue? some legend there :p but you know what they say by history being written by the "winners"


Seriously though this what/what isn't canon stuff is pretty weird tbh
 
You mean the one thing she had no thought of doing before the big bad basically forced her into the issue? some legend there :p


Seriously though this what/what isn't canon stuff is pretty weird tbh

Well taking that big of a decision is a really legendary thing to do.

Even if you don't believe that as legendary, the way she was willing to sacrifice herself for the air nation is a story people in our world would certainly put in history books.
 
ED: I also thought about this under a fluidity of the English language perspective, in that the word 'canon' may be taking on a new meaning in the context of fans using it to describe fictional media content, but because the word is still used for its original definition and purpose by actual content creators and businesses, I think it's more appropriate for a new word or term to arise to describe what fans are feeling/believing.

No we just disagree. I agree with Kinvara that the original creators have a centralized authority that viewers cannot have. The origin of canon is from a particular religious and historical context. The early christian church hierarchy was determining which books would be official and which would not. It was not a question for individual members, it was a question for the leaders of the faith who were accepted as having the inherent authority to make those kinds of decisions. The authoritative bodies of other sects and denominations made different decisions about what to include in the biblical canon, but in no sense was the canon ever seen as a personal or individual decision. That was the whole point of the canon in the first place; to have an absolute authority decide what must be accepted as official to avoid continued personal disagreement/fighting. Otherwise every individual member would have their own unique list of what they considered canon and the church would have no way to police its own communal identity and internal consistency. Discourse and doctrine would be impossible.

In the content creator context, the question is a non-issue because there are no legitimate disputes over hierarchy or source of authority; there's nothing resembling the church structure and consumers are not part of some larger organizational body. There's a group of creators who are the only possible people with the inherent authority to make a decision regarding the canon. You could have the equivalent of a Catholic/Protestant split if co-creators split up after the first series and they both created spinoffs simultaneously. Then you might have two people with seemingly equal claims of authority making canonical claims that are inherently in opposition. But presumably they would both accept the canonicity of the original series which would make it part of the undisputed canon.

By the very definition of the word only Bryke and Co. can promulgate a canon. You can't have your own canon because it would imply you have an equal claim of authority to make those decisions. Different people don't have different canons, different authoritative bodies have different canons. The authority to decree is implicit to canon making; perhaps you object to the idea that anyone should have that kind of authority, but in that case you're more rejecting the very concept of canon itself. The term I usually hear thrown about is 'headcanon', which I think gets across the inherent contradiction between the official canon and an individual's own personal ideal/belief about what they wish the canon actually was.

Yeah, this pretty much covers it.

How old is Pema anyways?
Also TIL she has a name that isn't "Tenzin's Wife"

39. She's 16 years younger than Tenzin.

But look what popped up when I googled lol:
jG3sFRO.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom