In the third season of the legend of korra, a group of people try to get rid of a monarchy (which is long established as especially unequal and oppressive) in favor of self government. They also try to get rid of the avatar, because she is an infallible being with incredibly outsized power. I love the avatar universe and get how they needed to fight them, but the group wasn’t wrong
Even the first season had Amon, the guy that wanted equality between benders and non-benders. At one point we’re even shown that power was cut to a predominantly non-bender neighborhood, and when people went outside to protest to get their power turned back on, they were all rounded up and arrested. Afterwards, when Korra goes and tries to get the people that were arrested set free, she’s told
All equalist suspects are being detained indefinitely. They’ll be freed if and when the task force deems them no longer a threat.
Just in case it wasn’t clear enough by that point that non-benders were treated as second class citizens.
All of the LoK villains were basically correct, and had to be caricatures of their stated beliefs in order to be villains. Amon was one of the better ones IMO though. Zaheer is too unrealistic
I’ve been meaning to re-watch Korra, but I remember even the first time I watched it being a bit disappointed in the “enlightened centrism” where they are trying to paint every conflict as pacifists vs extremists.
I think it’s similar to looking at BioShock 1 and BioShock Infinite. There’s a lot of writers out there who just use politics and ideology as a setting for the conflict rather than actually being central to their message. It’s simply a solid formula to make a villain: take any sort of stance and push it to violent extremes. Comstock is a religious zealot, Andrew Ryan I don’t think ever even mentions spirituality if I remember. Ken Levine’s message in the two games is not about religion, but extremes.
There are benefits. It makes the villains more nuanced and relatable. It gives the protagonist room for doubt and allows for some of the “good” guys to take on antagonistic roles. But Korra also ends up supporting an oppressive regime, and Booker DeWitt gets shoehorned into fights against the people rebelling against his enemy because… Reasons?
I think what made that group such good villains is that you could definitely see their point of view. That said, they left behind a TON of collateral damage, and they didn’t seem to care that innocent people, including children, died in their wake everywhere they went. They were terrorists that happened to have a noble cause.
If you’re talking about Kuvira you should read the comics that take place after the show. My feelings on Kuvira became much more mixed as I ended up sympathizing with her after finishing them.
In the third season of the legend of korra, a group of people try to get rid of a monarchy (which is long established as especially unequal and oppressive) in favor of self government. They also try to get rid of the avatar, because she is an infallible being with incredibly outsized power. I love the avatar universe and get how they needed to fight them, but the group wasn’t wrong
Even the first season had Amon, the guy that wanted equality between benders and non-benders. At one point we’re even shown that power was cut to a predominantly non-bender neighborhood, and when people went outside to protest to get their power turned back on, they were all rounded up and arrested. Afterwards, when Korra goes and tries to get the people that were arrested set free, she’s told
Just in case it wasn’t clear enough by that point that non-benders were treated as second class citizens.
All of the LoK villains were basically correct, and had to be caricatures of their stated beliefs in order to be villains. Amon was one of the better ones IMO though. Zaheer is too unrealistic
I’ve been meaning to re-watch Korra, but I remember even the first time I watched it being a bit disappointed in the “enlightened centrism” where they are trying to paint every conflict as pacifists vs extremists.
I think it’s similar to looking at BioShock 1 and BioShock Infinite. There’s a lot of writers out there who just use politics and ideology as a setting for the conflict rather than actually being central to their message. It’s simply a solid formula to make a villain: take any sort of stance and push it to violent extremes. Comstock is a religious zealot, Andrew Ryan I don’t think ever even mentions spirituality if I remember. Ken Levine’s message in the two games is not about religion, but extremes.
There are benefits. It makes the villains more nuanced and relatable. It gives the protagonist room for doubt and allows for some of the “good” guys to take on antagonistic roles. But Korra also ends up supporting an oppressive regime, and Booker DeWitt gets shoehorned into fights against the people rebelling against his enemy because… Reasons?
“No gods or kings, only men.”
I think what made that group such good villains is that you could definitely see their point of view. That said, they left behind a TON of collateral damage, and they didn’t seem to care that innocent people, including children, died in their wake everywhere they went. They were terrorists that happened to have a noble cause.
The formula for a good villain is “legitimate grievance, insane solution.”
Even in the first season, I was siding with the equalists :s
If you’re talking about Kuvira you should read the comics that take place after the show. My feelings on Kuvira became much more mixed as I ended up sympathizing with her after finishing them.
Its about Zaheer and his gang
He’s talking about Zaheer and the Red Lotus. They were extremely well intentioned, but set about their goals with violence.
was there a reasonable alternative?
Mate. I already got corrected, what’s the point of telling me the same thing twice? Unless you just want attention. Blocking you.
Did autocorrect change “fallible”? Because otherwise it makes the opposite point.
Probably a brain fart, thanks s