Recently the show Steven Universe used a single 45-minute episode to wrap up every plot point in the cartoon. However, this was only the ending to the fifth season of the show, and not the conclusion to the series. I am very worried about this, as I feel this would've been the perfect time to finish a great story. If a show, or any story for that matter, goes on for too long then it can damage itself permanently. I really don't want Steven Universe to fall down the same hole that The Simpsons did. I love the Simpsons, and I understand that it doesn't have a cohesive plot to conclude, but the modern show that it has become is awful. Endless sequelization has made something formerly great a lifeless mess, and it is a sad sight to behold. My favorite American cartoon, Gravity Falls, ran for only two seasons. The ending of those two seasons was one of the greatest finales I've ever witnessed, and is the primary reason that I love the show so much. Even though this latest finale in Steven Universe wasn't spectacular, I still really enjoyed it. The fact that it isn't an ending, so much as a break, makes me sad. If it had ended right there, I would've been content. The show might've even gained a respect that I've long harbored exclusively for Gravity Falls. In my mind, timing is the most important aspect of a proper ending, and I feel as though many modern works have lost sight of that. As a result, many don't have proper conclusions in the first place, and are canceled. I desperately hope that producers come to their senses, see past the possibility of more money, and realize that every proper story has a resolution.
2 Comments
No matter the medium, whether it be Skyrim or The Stormlight Arcive, the setting is always the factor that brings me back. There's just something so captivating about absorbing yourself in a world separate from your own. Even if you can't explore it directly it is interesting to learn the quirks and intricacies that have been laid about specifically for your enjoyment. If I had to think of one word to describe a good setting I would say "depth". A world with depth is able to show it's basics through whatever means it deems necessary, while also letting you discover its deeper aspects with time. If you don't know anything then you won't become invested, and if you know everything, then you will lose interest. Its a needle to thread, but if it's pulled off correctly then it's pulled off correctly. I can't even explain the the amount of joy I've gained from scouring the forests of The Legend the Zelda: Breath of the Wild or talking to the inhabitants of Undertale. To all of the people that have brought me joy through their creative, depth-filled worlds, this is a formal thank you.
Yang Xiao Long is one of my favorite characters from any show, and there is a very good reason for that. In RWBY consequences actually matter most of the time, and Yang is a product of that. Despite the fact that at the beginning of the show all of the characters are relatively shallow, Yang is proof that throughout the show every character gets the attention they deserve and grow because of it. By the time of the current season, Yang feels like a real person, and you can actually understand her emotionally. In the beginning, Yang relates to the ancient Greek heroes of myth, and serves as the unbreakable pillar of the team. But as time goes by, you realize that she has her own fracture points, and is far from invincible. When she finally reaches her "fall" as a hero, it is a genuinely shattering moment. The pillar has fallen, and the world held up by it is left to have its own "fall". Yang has to be given time to recover and she hasn't been the same for the rest of the show. I want more characters like Yang in pop culture. A while back, I did a blog on what I wanted in a character, and Yang is a perfect example of that. A character doesn't have to appear unique to be unique, and Yang really helped me appreciate that.
Alright, so a lot of people believe that you should always read the source material of a movie before watching it. I figured that I might as well write a blog about why I wholeheartedly disagree. Sure there are some movies that are more understandable if you already know what's happening, and there is a certain magic that comes with the visualization of one of your favorite book moments. However, movies that are based on something are rarely better than the original. I find that whenever somebody sees a movie based on a novel they really enjoy, they are normally disappointed. The plots of books are unable to perfectly adapt to this new medium, and as such these films are normally seen as "ruining the story". For instance, I just watched the movie Ready Player One, and I thought it was alright. It wasn't astounding but there wasn't anything really wrong with it. I have never read the book by the same name, and it was a positive experience. On the other hand, many people I know that had read the book beforehand didn't see it in the same way I did; they saw it as a disappointment. However, if they had watched the movie blind like I did, and then proceeded to read the book afterwards, they would still get the enjoyment of a great novel, while also getting the enjoyment of an okay movie. By thinking through scenarios like the given example, I have concluded that seeing the movie before reading the book is a safer option, even if you lose a few "magic moments", you gain more enjoyment overall.
|
AuthorMcRae Walker, an 20-year-old writer and lover of many dorky topics. Archives
September 2022
Categories |
Proudly powered by Weebly