You know, for a show that didn't have enough time to go into character development much like it's parent did. After re-watching Books 1 and 2 in 2 days I am suddenly feeling like I'm going to miss these characters when the show concludes in Book 4. How is this possible?
Its one of the last good action cartoons on right now and overall its still well done. I can at least with this want to see how Korra develops as she learns unlike that mismanaged mess of Thundercats and would have only gotten worse Pumyra the Zombie Bug Woman. Maybe the Platinum game will be the boost the show needs so maybe as Korra leaves maybe we'll at least get some more Avatar. Be nice if this could be a generational franchise like what most of Hasbro Has.
Because "Character development" is overrated by armchair critics. Characterization is more important than character development in making you relate to a character, and Legend of Korra has plenty of characterization. Character development is nice, but it's not the VITAL ELEMENT OF STORYTELLING that the internet treats it as.
>117326 And Korra was handled this massive responsibility that twice over has left her without a mentor to understand what being an Avatar is so she is now having to find her own way. Aang was busy forming a new nation and trying to rebuild his peoples culture. Didn't leave much time before the end to pen a guide for being an Avatar.
>117326 I think that has more to do with people confusing the term "character development" with "character depth". I remember people throwing the term around for Gundam 00 when they had (legit) criticism of the show for featuring too many characters who were all being shallow and one-dimensional.
>117348 >Same thing. No. They're not. Character development is about how a character's characterization changes over time based on the events that happened to them. Characterization is about making a character unique and relatable. A character can have shitty characterization and still have fantastic character development, and a character can have fantastic characterization and zero development.
For an example, look at most TV series with no continuity. There can still be characters with depth to them in this sort of series, characters who you really relate to. This can even happen with shows that HAVE continuity as long as the characters don't learn lessons--look at, for example, Seinfield or It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Or from comics, Nextwave. There is absolutely no character development of any sort in any of these titles, and yet they have hugely entertaining characters in the minds of many people because the characters are interesting and their characterization is solid.
>117356 Also people need to realize character development isn't always a "good" thing. Usually it is because the characters learn from their mistakes to be less naive or obnoxious, but it's totally possible (and all too common in anime) for a character who used to be likeable to turn into an unbearably whiny pile of wangst, or to become so cynical they go overkill on the douchebag.
Well, obviously there is such a thing as good and bad character development. Though I kind of think that if a character is introduced as one thing, goes through the events of the story and stays exactly the same then that's just as bad, if not worse, than if they just become really whiny.
>117373 >Though I kind of think that if a character is introduced as one thing, goes through the events of the story and stays exactly the same then that's just as bad, if not worse, than if they just become really whiny. So what are your feelings on the Big Lebowski?
Enjoyed it a lot, though I wouldn't necessarily classify it as staying the same or bad character development, what with the Dude going from being some bloke without an active interest in other people to actually getting invested in the "case" and stuff.
He didn't end the movie in the same place he started it, which is a pretty good thing in my book at least.
>117377 You apparently have very low standards for what counts as character development if you consider "Getting interested in one single case but not changing your personality even one iota" to be character development. And he was always interested in other people. C.f. how he went to his landlord's performance for no other reason than that his landlord wanted him there.
He DID change his personality though, he went from being invested mostly in himself (and bowling) to getting invested in other people, even ones that he really didn't have much of a stake in.
Would the Dude at the beginning of the movie be bothered to help the older Lebowski back into his wheelchair after they knock him onto the floor during the "Accusing Parlor" scene? In the beginning he was more concerned with getting a new carpet and possible some additional cash, later he gets invested for reasons other than just getting a paycheque.
>117404 >Would the Dude at the beginning of the movie be bothered to help the older Lebowski back into his wheelchair after they knock him onto the floor during the "Accusing Parlor" scene? In the beginning he was more concerned with getting a new carpet and possible some additional cash, later he gets invested for reasons other than just getting a paycheque. Yes, he would. He was shown to be willing to do things just because they made other people happy or more comfortable in the beginning of the movie, when he went to his Landlord's show. The Dude was the same person from beginning to end, like *most* Coen Brothers protagonists--the Coen Brothers are one of the most clear modern examples of storytellers who understand that character development isn't necessary to a good movie.