|
Post by nakedmolecrap on Jun 12, 2010 11:01:52 GMT -5
Copypasted from some nice feminazi's blog talking about The Last Airbender: The example of this that really broke my heart was Kim Possible. At first glance, it seemed to be all it promised to be: Kim was legitimately powerful and badass, and she wasn't the only one. The show was packed to the rafters with female badassery: Kim's obligatory female nemesis (and frequent fanfic lesbian partner) Shego, of course, but also Yori, Zita, Dr. Director, Kim's mother, Kim's grandmother – at one point, Kim's goofy sidekick Ron Stoppable asked, "Are all girls like this, or just the ones I know?"
But you didn't have to watch long before things started to seem a bit…off. First, Ron got His Day in the Spotlight with surprising frequency. Even during their regular missions, Ron seemed to be the one to push the self-destruct button on the Doomsday Device more often than not, albeit accidentally. Could it be that the show's creators, having created a strong, witty, resourceful female character, found her goofy male sidekick more interesting? Hmm…
Then we start to see Kim's flaws. A threat to the planet in the kitchen? Har-de-har. Same joke as every Action Girl from Movie-Eowyn to Akane of Ranma 1/2: Of course the tomboy doesn’t know how to cook! She's worked so hard at learning Man Skills, she's neglected her Woman Skills! Ha ha! Wev. I give it a roll of the eyes and let it go, because you have to admit, there are few rooms with more potential for comic disaster than the kitchen. Besides, do I want Kim to be like her mother, a world-class success at her day job (brain surgery, in Mom's case), then June Cleaver when she goes home at night? Of course not. Hey, wait a second, if it's not okay for Kim, then why – moving on!
Flaws. Workaholic who can't turn down a request for help? Standard hero problem. Clumsy and awkward around boys, especially her crush Josh Mankey? In the tradition of Clark Kent and Peter Parker – I can get behind that. Besides, she's sixteen. Doesn't always recognize or appreciate the talents of others? Well now. That shows hints of a genuine dark side. That could lead to some interesting plots – maybe combine it with the Workaholic Flaw and create a plot where she's tempted to subjugate the world for its own good. Maybe even a "Mirror, Mirror" episode…
Or it could lead to a whole bunch of episodes where other characters save the world and her ass, teaching her – repeatedly – that Other People Have Talents Too (and, not coincidentally, cutting her down to size).
Yep. Option B. It's enough to make you wonder why the title of the show is Kim Possible.
Still, it kept up this uncomfortable balance through three seasons, a finale, and a sequel season, until…
Until.
As a writer, I'm a big believer that the ending defines everything that came before it. Everything builds toward the ending, everything happens in service of it, so you really have no choice but to judge the events of a story in the light of the ending. So when the climax of the Series Finale involves Kim being knocked unconscious and captured by alien invaders as a result of Ron's clumsiness, the aliens discussing having her stuffed and mounted as a trophy, Ron being so enraged by this that his Mystic Monkey Power (a form of mystically-enhanced Kung Fun) flares to godlike levels, allowing him to kill both aliens and leave both Kim and Shego staring at him in awe and some small amount of fear, you can only reach one conclusion: The series Kim Possible is not about Kim at all, nor even about her and Ron growing into a mutual, equal partnership. It's the story of Ron Stoppable's Hero's Journey, as he strives to become worthy of a girlfriend as cool as Kim.
Which left me in a little bit of despair, I must admit. Is this the best kids have available to them? Are Strong Female Characters doomed to be underused, undermined, or just plain fake? What are they feeding the kids these days? Just some food for thought for the extremely creepy forty-something fans trying to bring the show back. Bye, I'll go back to lurking
|
|
|
Post by Nightspade on Jun 12, 2010 12:39:00 GMT -5
Excellent points made by the author. I'd go into more detail, but then I'd just get slammed with 'STOP TROLLING!!1!!' Suffice it to say I agree with what is being said.
|
|
|
Post by Zephyr on Jun 12, 2010 12:58:45 GMT -5
Just some food for thought for the extremely creepy forty-something fans trying to bring the show back. This was my favorite part... haha. Anyway, points well made, but I believe it just evolved from Kimcentric to Shipcentric then to Roncentric. If the story were to continue (and I hate saying that because it my give those creepy 40 somethings Fight for Fivers extra hope), I'm sure Ron would go back to being Ron and the serious would pick up with Kim and Ron being themselves as usual and it would go back to Shipcentric, and as the author stated, the Kim Possible title still wouldn't be accurate.
|
|
|
Post by eddybob15 on Jun 12, 2010 15:03:47 GMT -5
Admittedly, the writers might have overdone it a bit with the way they had Ron get control of the mystical abilities he's had ever since episode 3, but you have to see it from a different perspective. Ron was a goofy, clumsy oaf who was lucky a person as strong and confident as Kim gave him the time of day, let alone be his best friend. When the two of them started dating at the end of the movie, Ron felt it was unbelievable. Throughout the fourth season, Ron began improving himself to make himself worthy of Kim. Instead of seeing the series finale as a strong, independent, fierce female lead being made to look helpless, look at it as said female lead finally has a boyfriend who's not only good enough for her, but is her equal. It could be tricky, but if the writers ever brought the show back, they could probably show Kim as the same person even though she has a super-powered boyfriend. They were able to work in Kim and Ron's new level in their relationship, so they could probably make this work too (of course, they made it seem like Kim and Ron's love life seemed nonexistence, but that's beside the point).
And for the record, there are young members in the FFF, including me.
|
|
|
Post by imipak on Jun 12, 2010 16:31:21 GMT -5
This debate makes about as much sense as discussing hydrophobia on a board about sailing. I have probably seen more telefantasy than the author of the quoted article. In all probability, so vastly more that I have forgotten more series than they've ever watched. I've also written and submitted scripts to places like the BBC, founded the Free Film Project, and helped out with other people's similar work, so chances are I know more about writing telefantasy than the article author too. Oh, and the telefantasy society I founded at University got enough attention that Radio 5 spent considerable time interviewing us on the subject.
It is my opinion, both as a fan of so many series (I'm over 40, the series I watch, though, cover closer to a range of 60 years+) AND as someone involved deeply in fandom as a whole AND as someone also involved in the opposite side - that of producing the material - that Kim Possible WAS that great.
Why does my opinion matter and why do I regard theirs as a waste of space? For the same reason that NASA's opinion on the complexity of space travel matters and the opinion of a Moon-Landing-Was-A-Hoax bumpkin does not. All people have opinions, all people have the right to express their opinions, but not all opinions are created equal. Tough.
(This is not the first time I've lashed out at people with such views. I've offered far more savage opinions of Six-Of-One president opinions that Blake's 7 and Doctor Who were dross, because they darn well should have known better. Members of fandom have absolutely no business WHATSOEVER attacking other members of fandom. If you can't stand the idea of someone liking something that you don't happen to like, b-er off for you're no real fan of what you do purport to like - how can you be? Your likes will shift, same as everyone else's, which means what you loath and despise WILL include that which you claim to love. Can't have it both ways. Fans are fans, pundits are pundits, fadists are fadists, and never the twain shall meet.)
If you don't like what I like, fine. In my books, that makes you a loser, but that's just MY opinion. But the moment you try and justify why I should NOT like what I like - you are into a world of hurt. Abandon all hope, ye who enter here. Telling me what you like, that's cool. Telling me why you like what you like, that's also fine. Tell me what I should watch, tell me what I should enjoy, tell me how I should think - you've stepped over a line that you would never permit others to cross for you. Why should anyone else be different?
Why tell us we're so inferior that we should be less deserving of respect than you would demand for yourself?
|
|
|
Post by manofevil on Jun 12, 2010 17:10:33 GMT -5
As a writer, I'm a big believer that the ending defines everything that came before it. Everything builds toward the ending, everything happens in service of it, so you really have no choice but to judge the events of a story in the light of the ending. So when the climax of the Series Finale involves Kim being knocked unconscious and captured by alien invaders as a result of Ron's clumsiness, the aliens discussing having her stuffed and mounted as a trophy, Ron being so enraged by this that his Mystic Monkey Power (a form of mystically-enhanced Kung Fun) flares to godlike levels, allowing him to kill both aliens and leave both Kim and Shego staring at him in awe and some small amount of fear, you can only reach one conclusion: The series Kim Possible is not about Kim at all, nor even about her and Ron growing into a mutual, equal partnership. It's the story of Ron Stoppable's Hero's Journey, as he strives to become worthy of a girlfriend as cool as Kim. This is yet another reason why we cannot let the series end like it did.
|
|
|
Post by imipak on Jun 12, 2010 17:34:01 GMT -5
Everything builds towards the ending? I consider that to be a really crappy writing style. Sorry, just do. Stories are snapshots of the Sub-Created world (see: On Fairy Stories, by a JRRT*) and snapshots HAVE no ending. Open-ended stories are why we even have series. If everything had a neat ending, you could never, ever follow-on.
*I adhere to JRRT's ethos on stories, absolutely and unequivocally. Other writing styles may have their merits, but again how dare anyone tell me that the ethos I hold to doesn't exist? Does this matter? Really, truly matter? Well, that depends on how you define "matter". The usual rule is to ask if it will matter in a hundred years. "On Fairy Stories", "The Hobbit" and "Lord of the Rings" will matter 100 years after first penned - they're long-past the half-way mark already - but 99.999% of all the crap produced by English classes will never matter a week after written. By that standard, JRRT's ethos matters and what is taught on how to write does not.
Well, there's also a bit of familial tension as well. JRRT was a good friend of my grandfather, who was 2 doors down from him at Madgelen College at Oxford and who remained in close contact for the remainder of JRRT's life. Outside of mythos specialists, I probably know as much about how his Sub-Creation concept worked and works than any English teacher or lecturer ever will.
|
|
|
Post by Nightspade on Jun 13, 2010 0:10:39 GMT -5
I think an important point may have been missed. The author isn't going on about how much Kim Possible sucked, but how she's not really as strong of a female role model as she could be.
|
|
|
Post by imipak on Jun 13, 2010 2:18:54 GMT -5
I think an important point may have been missed. The author isn't going on about how much Kim Possible sucked, but how she's not really as strong of a female role model as she could be. Three words, three VITAL words, are still missing: "To The Author". This is true when the author is the author of an article, a post or a letter to the local ragmag. You can always tell the difference between a competent, rational, sane piece: The author is independent and neutral. Biased, quite possibly, but THE Gold Standard of journalism - and you can look this up if you like - was that any article other than an opinion piece MUST be of an independent observer, and that opinion pieces be CLEARLY MARKED as such. Notice that "balanced" and "fair" do not exist in this Gold Standard. It is important to realize that Gold Standard journalism is neither. What it is is accurate in itself and honest in what it is. Yes, I expect no less from anyone who has at least been to school up to age 16. You were taught that that standard existed and you were taught WHY that standard existed. You were also most definitely taught that imposing one's beliefs on another was not only a violation of the Gold Standard, but a darn good way to trigger a verbal riot. Any opinion stated in such a manner as to make it clear the poster believes this to be the One True Way knows darn well what they are getting into. It is not by accident but by design. This is why we who bother with integrity call such posts "flame-bait". They know that their opinion sucks, but that is of no importance to them. What is important is how many they can antagonize, how many they can provoke, how many they can hurt. You want a strong female role-model? Hell, you want a role-model at all? Then what the hell are you doing looking at those who consider emotional lynchings "fun" and "exciting", and especially enjoys the anguish and pain of others? You call THAT kind of disgusting, sickening perversion of humanity a "role-model"? No? Then don't stand up for them. Don't justify them. Don't pretend they are anything but emotional criminals, degenerates of the third degree.
|
|
|
Post by lordvictorino on Jun 13, 2010 2:20:11 GMT -5
Hi All, Maybe KP wasn't that great??? Maybe Kim Possible is the GREATEST!!! ;D Kim Possible can do Anything! This makes her the Most Powerful Character ever Created. And maybe even the GREATEST!!! Not to say that she can do Everything, just that she can do Anything. And she is also just a Basic Average Girl, as well. Which also gives her a more Earth Bound Demention to her Character, as well. The Best of Both Worlds. The Possibilities are endless. There is nothing Kim Possible can't do, nor where her story can't go. No Limitations. As you all make your arguments for why Kim Possible should not return, you are actually making the argument for why Kim Possible should return, as well. By the way, Kim Possible is a Rated G Show. Not Rated Y7 or PG, but Rated G. What does Rated G mean, you might ask? Well, Rated G means deemed suitable for viewers of a General Audience of ALL AGES. ALL AGES!!! Which means that Kim Possible is a Show that was made in a way so that it could be watched by a General Audience of ALL AGES. Not just for Kids, or Tweens, but for ALL AGES!!! Just some food for thought for the fans of Kim Possible of ALL AGES out there. Please and Thank You, Tony M. Victorino
|
|
|
Post by imipak on Jun 13, 2010 4:39:55 GMT -5
In KP's case, I thought G stood for Grilled Cheese.
|
|
|
Post by lordvictorino on Jun 13, 2010 8:53:41 GMT -5
In KP's case, I thought G stood for Grilled Cheese. Hi imipak, Are you serious or just being sarcastic? I can never tell? Please and Thank You, Tony M. Victorino
|
|
|
Post by Darth_Comrade on Jun 13, 2010 9:28:38 GMT -5
The answer is in the first lyrics of the theme song.
But I don't see how this is related to The Last Airbender- highly anticipating that movie, by the way.
|
|
|
Post by Nightspade on Jun 13, 2010 11:04:56 GMT -5
I think an important point may have been missed. The author isn't going on about how much Kim Possible sucked, but how she's not really as strong of a female role model as she could be. Three words, three VITAL words, are still missing: "To The Author". This is true when the author is the author of an article, a post or a letter to the local ragmag. You can always tell the difference between a competent, rational, sane piece: The author is independent and neutral. Biased, quite possibly, but THE Gold Standard of journalism - and you can look this up if you like - was that any article other than an opinion piece MUST be of an independent observer, and that opinion pieces be CLEARLY MARKED as such. Notice that "balanced" and "fair" do not exist in this Gold Standard. It is important to realize that Gold Standard journalism is neither. What it is is accurate in itself and honest in what it is. Yes, I expect no less from anyone who has at least been to school up to age 16. You were taught that that standard existed and you were taught WHY that standard existed. You were also most definitely taught that imposing one's beliefs on another was not only a violation of the Gold Standard, but a darn good way to trigger a verbal riot. Any opinion stated in such a manner as to make it clear the poster believes this to be the One True Way knows darn well what they are getting into. It is not by accident but by design. This is why we who bother with integrity call such posts "flame-bait". They know that their opinion sucks, but that is of no importance to them. What is important is how many they can antagonize, how many they can provoke, how many they can hurt. You want a strong female role-model? Hell, you want a role-model at all? Then what the hell are you doing looking at those who consider emotional lynchings "fun" and "exciting", and especially enjoys the anguish and pain of others? You call THAT kind of disgusting, sickening perversion of humanity a "role-model"? No? Then don't stand up for them. Don't justify them. Don't pretend they are anything but emotional criminals, degenerates of the third degree. Dude, chill out. At no point did the author say it wasn't their opinion. I think it's pretty obvious that it is an opinion piece. I highly doubt this was posted as flame bait, it really just seems like the femists's just expressing their views on Kim Possible. I don't understand why anyone would be hurt by that. Too much emotional investment in a cartoon maybe? I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Nightspade on Jun 13, 2010 11:16:46 GMT -5
Another thing I noticed earlier. If you don't like what I like, fine. In my books, that makes you a loser, but that's just MY opinion. But the moment you try and justify why I should NOT like what I like - you are into a world of hurt. Abandon all hope, ye who enter here. Telling me what you like, that's cool. Telling me why you like what you like, that's also fine. Tell me what I should watch, tell me what I should enjoy, tell me how I should think - you've stepped over a line that you would never permit others to cross for you. Why should anyone else be different? Perhaps you'd like to rephrase your first two sentences. Or the whole paragraph. At first you say anyone who dares have the nerve to disagree with your infallible point of view is a loser. Then you back track later in the same paragraph and say that having an opinion is fine. I'd also like to know where and when, exactly, the author of that blog tried to tell you what you should and shouldn't enjoy. Are you sure you aren't just going off on an unrelated tirade at this point, because I honestly cannot tell.
|
|
|
Post by Zephyr on Jun 13, 2010 15:43:47 GMT -5
I don't listen to any of their arguments because they just read like slush to me - not much sense to be gleaned from them.
|
|
|
Post by codenamehunterwolf on Jun 13, 2010 20:52:25 GMT -5
Perhaps this would read better on, I don't know, an anti Kim Possible forum.
|
|
|
Post by Nightspade on Jun 13, 2010 21:03:17 GMT -5
Oh, you're finally back, millinniummany3k. I suspected that you were still lurking the forum, though I am disappointed that you didn't try to salvage your old screen name. How have you been?
|
|
|
Post by imipak on Jun 15, 2010 0:30:38 GMT -5
There is no need to rephrase, but for the hard-of-thinking, I'll use boolean logic and pseudo-code:
* IF (Poster is Anti-Kim-Possible) AND (No rationale given) THEN Poster = Stupid
* IF (Poster dislikes what I like) AND (I like everything of artistic high standing, plus everything with similar qualities, plus the majority of cult films, plus 99.9% of all telefantasy) THEN Poster = REALLY Stupid, as there's nothing intellectual left and only non-intellectuals enjoy non-intellectual drivel as their only diet
* IF (Poster tells ME what to like) THEN Poster is a bigot as well as stupid
* IF (Poster's opinions differ from my opinions) THEN that is fine as opinions aren't people, it is certain that opinions will differ. That is wholly unimportant. It is what you do about it that matters. Telling others they are wrong is not an opinion, it is a statement of bigotry.
Next, is my viewpoint infallible? Define infallible. My viewpoint grows and evolves with every new fact. To me, it is infallible because it is able to do so. It is the stagnant, the stale, the morribund, who are wrong. Always. Those who grow may be incorrect, but only for a time, and by learning they are NEVER wrong.
So, yes, I am infallible, for the only way to fail is to think nothing, do nothing, grow nothing, say nothing, be nothing. The moment you are anything but nothing, you are perfect. But, as stated, that is merely my perspective. You can decide you are wrong more often than that if you like. It's your freedom.
|
|
|
Post by Zephyr on Jun 15, 2010 0:52:16 GMT -5
There is no need to rephrase, but for the hard-of-thinking, I'll use boolean logic and pseudo-code: * IF (Poster is Anti-Kim-Possible) AND (No rationale given) THEN Poster = Stupid * IF (Poster dislikes what I like) AND (I like everything of artistic high standing, plus everything with similar qualities, plus the majority of cult films, plus 99.9% of all telefantasy) THEN Poster = REALLY Stupid, as there's nothing intellectual left and only non-intellectuals enjoy non-intellectual drivel as their only diet * IF (Poster tells ME what to like) THEN Poster is a bigot as well as stupid * IF (Poster's opinions differ from my opinions) THEN that is fine as opinions aren't people, it is certain that opinions will differ. That is wholly unimportant. It is what you do about it that matters. Telling others they are wrong is not an opinion, it is a statement of bigotry. Next, is my viewpoint infallible? Define infallible. My viewpoint grows and evolves with every new fact. To me, it is infallible because it is able to do so. It is the stagnant, the stale, the morribund, who are wrong. Always. Those who grow may be incorrect, but only for a time, and by learning they are NEVER wrong. So, yes, I am infallible, for the only way to fail is to think nothing, do nothing, grow nothing, say nothing, be nothing. The moment you are anything but nothing, you are perfect. But, as stated, that is merely my perspective. You can decide you are wrong more often than that if you like. It's your freedom. Your post reeks of fail.
|
|