Because fans should be critical, too

Why I Will Not Be Watching Book Three of “Korra”

Last Friday, Book Three of The Legend of Korra premiered. Before that, the first few episodes were leaked. And even though the television premiere was yesterday, one could easily search the Internet for a few quality videos of the episodes. That I neglected to take advantage of any of these resources should tell you just how little Korra matters to me at this point. What plot elements I’ve heard of weren’t terribly interesting, nor were the casting choices. No, not even the choice of Henry Rollins as the main villain could make me start watching Book Three–besides, as much as I love the man himself, his choice of roles haven’t always been the best (Wrong Turn 2: Dead End being one of the happiest of exceptions).

After two less than satisfactory seasons, the good will created by the show’s predecessor, Avatar: the Last Airbender, has officially run dry for me.

No doubt this is the kind of reaction that creators Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko would relish. As evident in many of their interviews and commentaries, they seem to take many of the criticisms hurled at their poor storytelling choices in stride. Moreover, they are fully aware of the most polarizing aspects of Book One and Book Two, and frequently defend their choices on purely artistic grounds. For example, Korra’s appalling behavior in the first half of Book Two was allegedly supposed to help demonstrate her character development by the end of the season when she becomes a more mature person. Sounds kind of reasonable, except…where was the character development? Where were the consequences for terrible actions? More to the point, who is the character? Despite being the titular character, Korra has never emerged as a character independently capable of thought and emotion; anything she did could only be attributed to the writers and not to Korra’s personality. (I sometimes raised the same complaint with Aang, but periodically he showed sparks of true humanity, and when he didn’t, Zuko was almost always around to pick up the slack.) Korra and the rest of the characters seem to exist for the sole purpose of inspiring fanart and cosplays.

One can conclude that DiMartino and Konietzko are either oblivion to their own shortcomings, or they’re deeply in denial. Based on a few notes taken from the commentaries of Korra‘s Book Two, I also have a third theory that potentially presents the two in a more sympathetic, if not tragic light: DiMartino and Konietzko are simply too smart for their own good.

Apparently, after the Book Two finale of Avatar, the two were criticized for having Zuko join forces with his sister Azula, thus allowing the bad guys to win for the time being. These criticisms must have been deeply confusing to them, as they were doing what was best for the story (and indeed, the Book Two finale is one of the best and most effective moments in the entire series). They should have taken these reactions as a compliment that their choices as storytellers really got under the skin of their audience to the point that they had to verbalize their feelings in an attempt to understand them. And it’s not as if they said they’d stop watching the show: with one more season to go, the grief established at the end of Book Two would have to eventually payoff by the end of the series (which it did). Instead, DiMartino and Konietzko seemed to take an extreme position on the matter: that no matter what they did, some people–most likely the more rabid and vocal minority of their fandom–would be angry at their decisions.

To this extent that this is true for any artist (you can’t please everyone, after all), using that grain of wisdom as an ever-conscious, guiding principle is dangerous. What matters is not just that the choices made are essential to the message and development of the story, film, art piece, music, etc., but also that those choices and their impact on the piece are clear to the audience. Receiving a piece may not be as grueling a process as creating a piece (as Konietzko loves to let fans know concerning the hard work that goes into Korra), but it is still a process, and one that is aided as much by the audience’s own experiences as it is by the artists themselves. So regarding the audience, even a small minority of it, with an attitude that could potentially (though not inevitably) lead to full-on contempt is not a good idea.

Did this happen to DiMartino and Konietzko? I can’t say for sure, and I’m not going to pretend I know what precisely occurred in their heads during the productions of Avatar and Korra. But one could argue that whatever artistic and critical judgment they had certainly loosened up between Book Two and Book Three of Avatar. Book One may be shaky, but it can be forgiven since DiMartino, Konietzko, and company were still trying to find their way. They found it in Book Two (objectively the best and most consistent season), only to lose it a bit in Book Three. Despite the occasional lapses of quality, there are rarely any fatally superfluous moments in Book One and Book Two, as they all contributed to the story or the worldbuilding. Book Three, on the other hand, contains “The Ember Island Players,” the single most baffling and useless episode in a series that also contains “The Great Divide” (which, for all its failures, was at least a sincere effort). The episode’s sole purpose (as said by Konietzko) was to recap the show and make fun of its flaws and oddities before anyone else could.

In principle, an episode recapping the series up to that point using a poorly researched Fire Nation play as a framing device could be pretty clever and funny. “The Ember Island Players,” however, takes the laziest approach by having the play make direct references to specific episodes and moments that no one besides the main characters could have possibly been witness to. This sort of meta-humor (sadly way too prevalent these days) is completely inappropriate for Avatar, which, up until this episode, was fairly well-grounded in a reality that was painstaking pieced together over the course of three seasons. Putting such a self-referential and self-mocking sensibility in the middle of an otherwise serious story robs the rest of the tale of its emotional credibility. In a story world that stops to point out and laugh at how silly and weird the characters are, how can we take their actions and desires seriously? (This is actually a central problem with most animation, and something I’ll address in greater detail in the Frozen review.)

Such a blatant, world-breaking display of self-mockery only served to reveal the fragile egos of the show’s creators. The praise and accolades given to them after the completion of Avatar (including a Peabody Award) coupled with the critical and commercial failure of M. Night Shyamalan’s adaptation of their show could have only exacerbated things. To compensate, now they had to prove themselves as real artists to a world that, to this day, asks why they never told them what happened to Zuko’s mother. This could explain explain the fatal decision to write the spin-off of Avatar all by themselves. While on Avatar, they had the input of fellow head writer Aaron Ehasz and many other writers to help maintain quality control. DiMartino and Konietzko must have taken this outside help for granted: did they even consider the possibility of keeping at least one or two of the writers on to help them out? Perhaps by that point, even those very writers who helped develop the Avatar we know and love (for example, it was Ehasz who suggested Toph be a girl, and Zuko came to exist thanks to the practical corporate concerns of executive producer Eric Coleman) were as convinced of DiMartino and Konietzko’s singular genius as everyone else was.

It didn’t help that the Nickelodeon executives essentially gave DiMartino and Konietzko carte blanche on the new project, a decision that famously created tension when the executives grew worried that audiences wouldn’t accept a female action hero. Unfortunately, this silly concerned was apparently the only true challenge to their artistic and critical judgment. (Even when developing the show alongside directors Joaquim Dos Santos and Ki Hyun Ryu, the collaboration that would spawn the patchy, underdeveloped story of Book One of Korra only inspired one bout of creative difference: how to draw an ear.)

This subtle contempt for their own audience and their weakened their faith in their own abilities, combined with the need to prove themselves as artists and the creative freedom given to them for Korra, proved to be a recipe for disaster.

While Book One of Korra remains notably takes to its impeccable technical qualities, visual aesthetic and animation, it fails miserably as a story. That the show was critically and commercially successful anyway merely serves as a tribute to how good their artistic and critical judgment used to be when they made Avatar with a little help from their friends. It’s doubtful that DiMartino and Konietzko would ever interpret the situation this way. This is only further emphasized by their general reaction to the more damning criticisms of their show, particularly regarding Korra’s lack of character development, the inexplicable love triangle, the unfortunate implications in their treatment of the Equalist movement, and especially the Deus ex Machina ending. Having deduced those critiques as coming from “angry fangirls who disliked Makorra” shows a gross underestimation of their audience’s intelligence and what they demand from a story. (Besides, who’s to say angry fangirls don’t know a bad story when they see one?)

Unfortunately, the downward spiral continued into Book Two of Korra, even with the addition of several returning writers from Avatar. Maybe, as I speculated earlier, they underestimated their own contributions to that show’s success and simply came along to bow down to the genius that brought that show into existence.

The result? More of the same, except with worse animation (meaning that the most commendable aspects of Book One no longer justify the show’s existence), and a finale that is surprisingly more infuriating than that of Book One. Book One’s finale at least had the decency to end shortly after pulling the rug from under the audience. In Book Two’s finale, the episode reaches that point early on, meaning we have that much more to watch as we seethe in anger over how severely our emotional connection was snapped in half. This fury makes the rest of the viewing process miserable because, despite the story having destroyed its reason to exist, it continues on with a logic that slips into the impossible. It’s a horrifying sight,  an onslaught of almost inhuman cruelty.

Thanks to the Book Two DVD commentaries, I’ve learned this psychological disturbance was the result of severe laziness and, perhaps, even a silly attempt to match or outmatch the nihilistic intensity of Game of Thrones, but in a children’s program. The creators excuse this neglect with the following quote: “You can sit around and like, nit-pick it. And maybe there’s stuff that doesn’t make sense on the physical plane, but on the spirit plane it totally makes sense.”

What actually does that mean? Are they measuring spirituality by how willingly the audience accepts a final battle that has no build up, no discernible logic or symbolism, and no story crucial element that would make it cathartic and meaningful? Are the people who refuse to accept poor choices in storytelling simply not spiritual enough to comprehend the genius of DiMartino and Konietzko? (I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that by “spiritual,” they actually mean “emotional.” Even then, their presumptuousness is alarming.)

I simply cannot comprehend how anyone can watch the finale of this season and get any emotional satisfaction out of it. Am I simply out of touch with my peers? Or are my standards too high to accept the arbitrary nature of what’s occurring onscreen? Perhaps DiMartino and Konietzko are benefactors to the more extreme fandoms who are capable of seeing past critical flaws if only the work provides them with an easily digestible “message” and something to cosplay and vicariously live through in its innocent simplicity.

As for myself, I simply have no more time and patience for the careless and condescending work of two pretentious, megalomaniacal “artists” that seek to activate eliminate those previously beloved elements of their tale without providing anything resembling an acceptable alternative. That this embarrassing art school behavior was able to make its mark on an American animated children’s program makes it a fascinating and easily accessible case study in how not to develop as an artist in any medium.

Advertisements

16 responses

  1. You should still watch and review it for all of us.

    July 4, 2014 at 11:30 pm

    • Brian

      No, not really.

      July 5, 2014 at 11:38 am

  2. Brian

    The fifth paragraph reminds me of the opposite of Hideaki Anno when making Neon Genesis Evangelion. He was upset when fans didn’t hate Shinji, the main character, enough since he was meant to be a deconstruction of the mecha anime protagonist. Sometimes, a negative reaction actually means something.

    July 5, 2014 at 11:37 am

    • I actually appreciate Neon Genesis Evangelion as a thin-veiled “fuck you” to most anime fans (especially the final two episodes). Unlike with DiMartino and Konietzko, I actually get what Hideaki Anno was (mostly) going for, and, to the extent that I sympathize with him, commend him for it. It did backfire, though, since not only is Evangelion held as one of the most influential anime ever made, but Anno himself returned to redo the original show with slicker animation and slight script revisions.

      July 5, 2014 at 12:18 pm

      • Brian

        That’s why I never actually watched the Rebuild Of Evangelion movies. I thought they wouldn’t have the original feel of the anime.

        As for Anno, that’s pretty smart. The media, instead of being made out of service to anime fans, ended up being a cold vendetta against them. That said, what did you think of the End Of Evangelion movie, which is supposed to be an alternate/complimentary ending to the anime?

        July 7, 2014 at 8:28 am

      • I never watched it precisely because it was described to me as an alternate/complimentary ending. I realize that Evangelion‘s final episodes were partially the result of decreased budget and sanity, but I doubt more reasonable working conditions could have produced a bolder, more exhilarating final statement from Anno. Whereas as DiMartino and Konietzko’s intended message (if there even is one) got lost in their poor judgment and artistic choices, Anno knew exactly what he wanted to saying and, most importantly, he knew how to say it with those last episodes. Whether you hate those episodes or not (I personally believe they elevate the series to masterpiece territory), you’ve got to respect the man’s audacity and integrity.

        That said, I’ll watch The End of Evangelion eventually. For all I know, it may actually make the series even better!

        July 7, 2014 at 11:19 am

  3. Ian

    It always surprises me that you can be so bold and outspoken and angry at a show that I and most others particularly like and enjoy, yet you never come off as a hater or whiny. Soooo… good on you 🙂 anyway, I for one don’t see the need for you to watch Book 3 at this point. But I do think when its all said and done you should give it a run through. I do wonder, however, what do you think of people like me who DO like Korra? Do you think we are blind to the flaws or are incapable of being critical? (I don’t mean this at all to start a fight or argument, just genuinely curious)

    A little recap on my personal opinions of the show, Book 1 to me was very well written in terms of the story it wanted to tell and how (most) of its characters were handled. I enjoy Korra as a protagonist and enjoy her willingness to help others (the nonbenders being taken by Tarrlock and the shopkeepers In episode 1), admit when she’s wrong (to Tenzin and Bolin), and overall interesting to watch (her fear of Amon and her skills as a probender and fighter. Also her relationship with Tenzin is very good) Amon was an amazing villain and the equalist plot was interesting place to take the story. The show was beautiful and well directed, and the music was very atmospheric.

    However, the book suffered sometimes from rushed pacing, the horrible character that is Mako, a boring and irritating love triangle, and a rushed ending.

    Overall I would give it a B+ as I don’t see the ending as ruining the book, just the potential that the last 20 minutes of the show gave us (from Amon taking Korra’s bending to the end)
    A really good season, but not great.

    Book 2 is a different beast entirely. From ruining Korra as a character and turning her into one of the most infuriating character I’ve ever watched on a television show, to the weak villain, the rushed rushed, rushed, rushed, RUSHED, pacing, horrible first half animation, weak usage of Asami, uninteresting finale, and just the overall lack of fun I had while watching the book.

    However, there were a few good episodes, even great episodes, sprinkled throughout, and while I don’t think Beginnings is the amazing two parter everyone says it is, it was interesting none the less. I also enjoyed the added humor, the beautiful animation in the second half of the book, the music, the new characters, and ending the romance (between Korra and Mako that is) once and for all.

    Overall I would give book 2 a C- or a D+. Aside from a few good episodes to watch as standalones, I will, probably, never re watch the book, in its entirety, by myself.

    so those are my thoughts and I hope by this I have proven that I’m not one of those fans who loves everything Bryke throws at the fans just because its in the same franchise as Avatar, and that I am willing to be critical and objective.

    Wow. SO sorry for the long post Marshall. I hope you made it through ok XD

    please reply and thanks for reading

    July 5, 2014 at 2:47 pm

    • Don’t concern yourself too much with your post lengths when talking to me. Besides, long posts make for good discussion.

      I don’t think of Korra fans any differently than other people: I would never automatically chastise anyone for their tastes. Their tastes may hint at character, but never gives you a complete understanding of a person, so why get hung up on it? If you get enjoyment out of Korra, that’s your bag, man. I’m glad you found a little piece of something to brighten your day! (This is why Frozen‘s commercial success of over a billion dollars doesn’t bother me so much, even if the film itself irks me a bit.)

      No, I try to keep my attacks on the work itself—except in cases where the artists’ judgment is so off-base as to cause real concern (ex. where seemingly deliberate sabotage is the only aim). Art is a psychological neutral party designed specifically to communicate ideas/emotions between the artist and the audience. The design choices are infinitive, though some techniques are more effective than others in given situations defined by the intentions of the artist and the medium they’re working. Being neutral and thus changeable (unlike the human psyche), the art can be submitted to such critical treatment.

      In short: the art is not the person, and the person is not the art. The art may be the only bridge between us, but no one can ever know another human being through art alone. Besides, sometimes art says more about us than the artist even intended (or even had the imagination to intend at first), which just confuses the issue.

      Going back to your original question, Korra fans are A-OK in my book. Book One, to me, has enough positive merits in the technical and cultural department to deserve some of its admiration (which is why I bought the DVD and the Art Of book). Book Two, no so much, but if you dig it, I won’t judge you. On the broader side of things, I doubt DiMartino and Konietzko’s poor artistic decisions are going to cause any kind of damage to anyone/anything but themselves. (By contrast, the poor artistic decisions of The Beatles contributed to the Manson murders. The Sixties in general had pretty mixed results.)

      I don’t higher standards: to say so would be intolerably presumptuous. I’ll just have different and specific standards based on what I feel expresses the vitality, absurdities, up and downs of life based on my personal experiences of life and art. Actually, that might be true for everyone: either it connects or it doesn’t. Why not? That’s what I want to find out (especially if I want to create art myself). Sometimes the reasons for disliking something are too personal to explain. Sometimes it’s as obvious as bad dialogue. Where you draw/perceive the line depends on you. Since we’re all different, we all draw our lines for individual reasons that may not be immediately apparent (nor simple). And we’re free to recognize where others draw their lines and kindly disagree.

      For example, you say Book One’s ending only ruins the potential for a different storyline than the one the show ultimately gave us instead of the series as a whole, which is my take on it. You make a valid point, and while I still disagree, I can see where you would find a positive where I found a negative. If anything, we both now know where that line is within the art itself. That’s about as objective as it gets. So if you were worried about that, relax: it’s a never-ending (nor always pleasant) process, but you had the good sense to subscribe to it. That’s commendable. You’re on the right track.

      P.S. I could have sworn I recommended you a few books some time ago. Did you ever find one of those?

      July 6, 2014 at 1:45 am

  4. rosemon

    Apparently a more complete version of the Book 2 commentary has been posted.

    http://dongbufeng.tumblr.com/post/90628908663/korra-book-2-blu-ray-commentary-highlights

    I guess looking back on the book 2 final battle, it does seem like a poor attempt on part of the writers on channeling FLCL plus Pacific Rim. No wonder that finale was a mess; the “crazy for the sake of crazy” style just doesn’t suit Avatar.

    July 5, 2014 at 8:50 pm

    • Bryan about the Unavaatu fight: “I just love this stuff. I’m a big Furi Kuri fan and the creator of that, he didn’t want the series to make sense, he just wanted people to watch it like MTV. You should experience and feel it on an emotional and intuitive and spiritual level. To me that’s what this crazy battle is, it’s symbolic.”

      In other words, we are most definitely witnessing the self-indulgence of two creators who don’t know or care how incompatible the influence of FLCL is with the Avatar universe (as they helped create it thus far) as long as they get to express their love for FLCL (a series whose craziness is only acceptable because it persists throughout the entire series instead of suddenly popping up out of nowhere like in the finale of Book Two of Korra).

      They say high school never ends. I guess art school (and all its dangerous pretensions) doesn’t either.

      July 6, 2014 at 1:52 am

  5. It took me months of re-watching book two, and a LOT of theological and world building conjecture, but I think I FINALLY got book two to make some lick of sense. And that’s just sad – as you pointed out, this is mass art, not some hidden mystery that you have to work this hard to solve. And sitting through hours of bratty Korra and the weak villains of Varrick and Unalaq was painful.

    July 8, 2014 at 8:01 am

  6. Dear Marshall Turner, I understand your ‘hatred’ of Legend of Korra and no doubt there are some short comings in this series, but book three is shaping up to be really good. I’ve written pages and pages of Avatar review in the last few days so I wouldn’t bore you (or myself) with the details but I would highly recommend it. The bending looks spectacular, the characters are more likable than ever and the villains are much better than Unalaq and Amon (Amon was good until the very end…)

    In order words, watch it good sir!

    July 15, 2014 at 9:57 am

    • Tell you what, partner: once I’ve finished writing and recording the Frozen review (which I’m aiming to get done in another week), I’ll give the first three episodes of Book Three of Korra a chance. I’ll share the results here, of course.

      July 15, 2014 at 1:12 pm

      • Sounds swell, I’ve followed your blog and would love to hear your opinion and analysis on Korra. I’m really going to emphasis how good bending looks in book 3, it’s no longer water benders pretending to be fire benders, slowly you can see the culture of the nation return to their respective bending.

        Peace out.

        July 16, 2014 at 12:54 am

  7. rosemon

    http://www.salon.com/2014/07/18/you_gotta_deal_with_it_the_tv_writers_behind_the_powerful_female_character_no_one_is_talking_about/

    Are people really still promoting Korra as a Strong Female Character ™ in 2014?

    July 19, 2014 at 10:54 am

  8. I didn’t like Book 2 either, but so far Book 3 has just been… magical. I’m not sure why. Maybe because it throws out the oppressive melodrama of the previous books and replaces it with a quiet serenity tinged by subtle menace? There’s also been a lot of good character development.

    Actually, now that I think about it, almost every single episode of Book 3 has been strongly reminiscent of The Western Air Temple and The Puppetmaster.

    July 20, 2014 at 11:44 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s