And the possibility of sinking a few ships that were established at the end of the series can't be all that good an idea.
Many fans feel like the characterization is off-key and find it hard to believe that Zuko would ask Aang to kill him, or that Aang would agree. Others enjoyed the book a great deal and find few problems with how the characters are portrayed. Part 3 does address the issue head-on, with Zuko admitting he asked for Aang to do so as an easy way to escape any consequences of making the wrong decision, with Aang assuring him that he would be unwilling to kill Zuko in any case.
And many just find the story unnecessary, too simple with not enough development, and a borderline case of Sequelitis, especially when compared to the more interesting real sequel, The Legend of Korra, that premiered before the second part was even out! Initially, Korra was supposed to premiere much later- in the fall, after Part 3 came out- but got bumped up due to the fandom and creators.
One thing that should be remembered is that ATLA came out way back in 2005 and was mainly meant for the 7-13 age bracket (not considering all that went past the radar and the fact that the series has a large Periphery Demographic) and Yang's "purist" style (as he calls it) is written to fit in there. The thing is, the original fandom has grown up considerably since then and at 16-17+ (and even 20+ for some) your tastes are radically different from a 10 year old and that would explain why a lot of fans are complaining about the plot being too simple and unsophisticated. Korra on the other hand succeeded there because this fact was taken into account from the beginning.
This is really coming off like repeated bashing, from referencing Yangs "style" in quotation marks to saying Korra is just more interesting and that's that. It isn't fair to both sides. A base breaks both ways, and both ways should be presented equally and fairly. There are people who liked it and people who didn't, but the people who didn't shouldn't get a whole two extra bullet points about how simple and immature the book is and how there are x reasons why it's just not as good as Korra when some people think it is. Some people have found it nuanced. They should have a say. Also, the ship wars shouldn't be redundantly mentioned twice.
I don't want to take away from how the base has broken because I don't know, but just going off reviews the book clearly has fans, and they should have a say too.
This is really coming off like repeated bashing, from referencing Yangs "style" in quotation marks to saying Korra is just more interesting and that's that. It isn't fair to both sides. A base breaks both ways, and both ways should be presented equally and fairly. There are people who liked it and people who didn't, but the people who didn't shouldn't get a whole two extra bullet points about how simple and immature the book is and how there are x reasons why it's just not as good as Korra when some people think it is. Some people have found it nuanced. They should have a say. Also, the ship wars shouldn't be redundantly mentioned twice.
I don't want to take away from how the base has broken because I don't know, but just going off reviews the book clearly has fans, and they should have a say too.