Back to Reviews

Reviews Comments: DO SOMETHING! Steven Universe whole series review by dasuberkaiser

I went into Steven Universe having heard nothing but praise for it, and ordinarily that would induce Hype Aversion but people I like and respect also praised it, its fans had a lot of crossover with things I\'m a fan of, people with similar tastes to me liked it, and the bits I heard made it sound like something I should love. So instead I went in expecting and wanting to like it.

Which is why I\'m so sad to say that I absolutely hated everything about it.

I wish there were just a few key factors to my dislike, but there wasn\'t just one aspect that put me off that I can easily explain whenever someone asks me - it just...wasn\'t...good. I don\'t have room for a detailed dissection of every small-to-medium problem that slowly piled up into a greater mess, so I\'ll try to cover the very basics (oh, and I\'ve seen every episode, so the \"it gets better!\" that\'s the knee-jerk response to any criticism won\'t cut it here):

The pacing is abysmal to the point of frequently managing the miraculous feat of making eps feel too long and too short at the same time. Apparently this is because the show is supposed to be \"character-focused\", but all the characters only have three traits between them: boring, obnoxious, and stupid. No matter how many times it tries to present them as lovable, I don\'t want to watch the adventures of a blithering idiot and 3 creepy abusive psychos. If there\'s a character I don\'t want to strangle, it\'s only because they\'re too flat to justify any strong feelings.

Some claim the show has great character development, which is frankly the biggest load of shit I ever heard. Sometimes they act completely different from one ep to the next for no good reason (you\'ll notice consistency is never a strong suit), but they never \"develop\". As soon as next ep roles around they\'re stuck back in their 1-dimensional ruts no matter what happened previously.

The setting and world-building also suck. Gem abilities (including whatever the plot needs them to pull out of nowhere and then forget as soon as the credits roll) make no sense and they constantly contradict themselves on their workings and properties (coughfusioncough), always breaking any morals they were trying to teach using any sort of supernatural context wide open. There are story elements that could be used to make something interesting if they DID SOMETHING with them, but here are inevitably crudely shoved aside to make room for vapid filler.

Every time we see a character start to exhibit a mildly interesting new trait, every time the plot vaguely wanders in the direction of happening, they mash the reset button like they made a horrible mistake that must be fixed by applying dull filler. I tried to summarize the plot of season 1 in 2 sentences, and realized I was writing a premise, not a plot. Many great series don\'t last close to 75 episodes, we\'re past that mark and barely anything has actually HAPPENED.

Sorry to disappoint, but I don\'t believe in Steven.

Comments

  • dasuberkaiser
  • 25th Mar 16
Due to the supposedly-3000-but-actually-2986-for-some-reason character limit, I wasn\'t able to go into nearly as much detail as I would have liked, but I\'ll be happy to clarify what I mean if any of my issues are unclear, which most of them are because I had to heavily truncate almost everything to make it fit.
  • Theokal3
  • 25th Mar 16
Well, for starter, would you care some actual example to illustrate your affirmations?^^
  • dasuberkaiser
  • 26th Mar 16
^Which one do you want to start with?
  • Theokal3
  • 26th Mar 16
Well, let\'s see.... You drescribe the main characters as \"boring, obnoxious and stupid\". Care to specify why exactly they are appear to be so to you? What in their actions or personalities give you that impression?

Same question applies to Gem\'s tech and powers; how exactly are they badly explained or inconsistant?
  • dasuberkaiser
  • 26th Mar 16
"What in their actions and personalities[...]?" Everything. I thought that part, at least, was clear.

As for technology and powers...let's see here: for starters, Red Dwarf is not supposed to be a serious work of science fiction. "Hard Light" is not supposed to be a plausible fictional science idea that you should use in your own work if you want to be taken seriously. So how durable are these "holograms with mass" anyway? We frequently see Gems being flung across huge distances into walls and buildings and getting up without a scratch or even an expression of discomfort, other times humanoids and Monsters alike get "poofed" by being stabbed with a pointy stick or a light blow to the head. How come they can create one specific type of weapon each out of the same material but no other separate objects? If their bodies are just projections that they can change the shape and appearance of, why do they always regenerate into the same body with at most a different outfit and hairstyle? And why do those bodies always look like technicolour humans? And why always FEMALE humans if they're supposed to have no biological sex? Peridot has never even SEEN a human before, and yet it looks exactly like one, speaks perfect fluent English, and then shows up with a ship from the Homeworld (as in, the people who want to kill all humans) shaped like a giant human hand. And if their physical Gems are their only weak points, why don't they form their bodies so they have those, say, inside them like sensible lifeforms do with their essential organs, instead of in the most exposed and vulnerable locations physically possible (Garnet's fighting style is based entirely on punching things and it keeps its weak spots on its hands wat)?

The worst part is, none of that is necessary for the story. In a soft sci-fi story like Star Trek to pick a random example, you can accept Warp Drive and Transporters without questioning the specifics of how they work because it needs those in order to have a story about exploring random alien planets, which is what the show is about on a basic level. There's no reason a show that's on a basic level SUPPOSEDLY all about character interactions and "the unconditional love a family feels for each other" (yeah right) needs any of those characters to be space aliens, let alone space aliens based on a concept that's pure nonsense with New Powers As The Plot Demands out the wazoo in order to tell that type of story.
  • LitleWiggle
  • 26th Mar 16
The idea that the show doesn\'t NEED to be about sci Fi or fantasy elements is a pretty weak complaint, honestly.

I can get complaints about the inconsistent powers and the massive pacing problems (those are my main problems with the show, that\'s coming from a HUUUUGE fan) but that just doesn\'t make much sense to me. The disconnect between the magical girl elements and the mundane situations is part of the idea.
  • dasuberkaiser
  • 26th Mar 16
I'm not complaining that it has both sci-fi/fantasy elements and more mundane storytelling elements, I'm complaining that the sci-fi/fantasy elements are poorly done. There's no reason a show couldn't be a science fantasy action show and a story about love and family and all that jazz, but when those elements are so badly handled and contribute so little to any of the emotional or character-driven bits that're supposed to be the main draw, in fact most of the time they negatively impact those and make them work LESS well, I have to wonder why they even bother. I've heard that the show is trying to go for multiple demographic appeal, but if so it fails by not doing anything well enough and ending up weak and directionless: there's not enough action to appeal to action fans, it's not funny enough frequently enough to be a good comedy, moments that even try to be emotional are to few and far between to be a point of appeal, the SF/fantasy elements are half-hearted and underdeveloped, the main plot is too sparse for someone looking for a plot-driven show but there's nothing special about the self-contained stories too make them more enjoyable than any other episodic show. Obviously it appeals to SOMEONE, but I have no idea who they were aiming for.
  • LitleWiggle
  • 26th Mar 16
I dunno, I think it\'s pretty funny personally. Not a laught out loud riot, but it makes me chuckle frequently. But I get a better sense of what you\'re saying now. I personally disagree, but I understand where you\'re coming from.

I can\'t really argue too much with your points since everything you mentioned is pretty subjective. It works for me, it doesn\'t work for you, no point in me getting worked up over it.
  • LitleWiggle
  • 26th Mar 16
Aside from the pacing. I totally agree with you about the pacing. It\'s definitely not helped by the constant ENDLESS hiatuses.
  • Theokal3
  • 27th Mar 16
Everything. I thought that part, at least, was clear.

That\'s too vague. Some people reading this review haven\'t seen the show or have seen only a few episodes. You could at least give one character and say why you don\'t like his/her personality, for example.

for starters, Red Dwarf is not supposed to be a serious work of science fiction. \"Hard Light\" is not supposed to be a plausible fictional science idea that you should use in your own work if you want to be taken seriously.

... It\'s a cartoon. I usually hate advocating the \"it\'s for kids\" excuse, but I am pretty sure that kind of cartoon isn\'t concerned with being scientically accurate. Now I will admit the other incoherences you raise make more sense, but that specific point puzzles me a bit.
  • dasuberkaiser
  • 27th Mar 16
^Even if I thought we should insult children's intelligence, I'd still hold something I've been repeatedly told is "the best thing on television" and "the greatest show ever" to a much higher critical standard. I can easily accept premising a show around a pseudoscientific concept that's such flagrant bullshit that the trope-naming example comes from a COMEDY that doesn't take anything seriously, as long as you actually stick to your guns rather than seeming to forget half the time as basic a fact as your own characters being made of energy and being unable to keep a simple detail like how tough they are compared to humans straight. In one episode, Pearl is "poofed" by being stabbed through the chest like a normal human would be, but in another Garnet is thrown across the town and smashes into a building hard enough to smash the sign and end up embedded in the wall, and it doesn't even phase her. Those aren't even minor offhand incidents, those set off the plots of their respective episodes, you'd have to be TRYING to forget this stuff. Now you could put that down to them being different classes of Gems who might be more or less fragile (a reasonable idea, but not even hinted at being correct as of yet), but according to the guidebook Amethyst and Jasper are both supposed to be Quartzes, who are like the elite warrior class, correct? So how come one was "poofed" like five times in one episode by having stuff fall on it, while the other was thrown through several walls, electrocuted, and fell hundreds of kilometers from low orbit onto hard ground and all it did was annoy it? One faceplanted of a cliff and damaged its Gem to critical levels, the other faceplanted from SPACE and its wasn't even scratched. What, did it block the ground? You can't just pull shit like this and expect me not to notice!

As for the characters, if someone hadn't seen the show I would have to summarize everything that happened in it to make them fully understand every reason I didn't like anyone, but if you insist here's a basic overview of what I don't like about the main-est of main cast: Steven's a complete moron who the show shills like he's the second coming of Jesus despite that, with every other character adoring him for some reason and him somehow managing to save the day constantly, making the people who should be far more powerful and better at the job than him look like helpless grubs (they'd probably be far more formidable if they remembered that they have powers when it mattered) to make way for him improbably solving all problems despite being an incompetent moron. Garnet has all the personality of a brick. In most scenes you could replace it with a tape recorder loaded with noncommittal grunts and I wouldn't notice. Amethyst is an annoying, selfish, sadistic asshole. Pearl is whiny, self-centered, histrionic, clingy, overbearing, snooty, obsessive, a control freak, and a drama queen. OUR HEROES EVERYONE.
  • dasuberkaiser
  • 27th Mar 16
^^^For me, it\'s not just that the pacing is slow as molasses - I\'m usually the first person to defend slow pacing in a story, I rarely find it particularly detrimental to a story - it\'s that whenever something story-arc-related does happen, it\'s always a weak anticlimax that doesn\'t do anything to actually advance the story. \"Okay, we\'ve had our token acknowledgement that the main plot exists, now let\'s shove all that off to the side and forget about it while we go back to business as usual to the point where if you didn\'t know you\'d never be able to guess whether a given episode happened before or after.\" It\'s progress that we at least have some sort of antagonists now, but they\'ve barely made any actual impact when they do appear. No matter what happens, they hit the reset button and the formula never measurably changes. I can\'t see how anyone who does care about these characters and this world would be able to tolerate it despite this, because after all this time they\'ve just now started to use them for anything. And I\'m like, you\'ve had everything set up for a season and a half already, that\'s more than enough time to be ready, now DO SOMETHING WITH THEM! Of course the fans don\'t care, the creators could release a clip of a character eating a cracker and they\'d act like it was the most amazing, shocking, earth-shattering thing they ever saw and made them cry for hours.
  • LitleWiggle
  • 27th Mar 16
Ok, now you\'re just being a dick.
  • GarnetRebeller96
  • 29th Mar 16
What a terrible written review. It's basically just this "This show doesn't appeal to me, IT SUCKS!!!"

With very poor and shallow and outright false reason as to why such as claiming there only traits are being annoying and stupid. I'm convince you probably didn't watch most of the episodes judging from some of your complaints.
  • Bastard1
  • 29th Mar 16
Come now, you can concede defeat in a seemingly hopeless debate with more decorum than that. You see, where I'm from, people who use needless ad hominems en masse are the ones usually categorized as "dicks".

While I don't condone OP's aggressive (hold the passive), borderline tyrannic attitude here, I can sort of see where they're coming from. I'm hardly an expert on the subject—in fact, I view it as a mild improvement over the categorically terrible Adventure Time show only in a unit of measurement derived from quark and neutrino theory—but what I've seen seems intentionally open-ended, even cynically so, so as to invite fan speculation so they can base their enjoyment of it on headcanon elements rather than what the show itself brings. This is something that I, as a hypothetical show creator existent merely for the sake of this flimsy argument, would take as a huge slight... though they really don't seem to mind. "Peoples is strange," like John Morrison said. Or something.

(Tee hee, can't help but imagine OP as Dudley Dursley at the zoo with that headline. Better be careful, you never know who might have magical powers around here! Don't lean to close to that glass window's all's I'm sayin'...)
  • GarnetRebeller96
  • 29th Mar 16
^ I'm sure most of the words you are using aren't even necessary to even use. Categorically terrible Adventure Time ?

Using measurement derived from quark and neutrino to determine how better a show is? Come on now...
  • dasuberkaiser
  • 1st Apr 16
^^^Oh? Really? Because I\'d say not appealing to ME is a fairly good reason for ME to say it sucks. That would just be me saying what my experience was. Pray tell, in what other circumstance would I be justified in saying \"it sucks\"? Besides, saying it \"doesn\'t appeal to me\" would be a poor way of phrasing it, because, in concept, the show DOES appeal to me. If you had actually paid attention to what I said in my review, you would have noticed that that was the reason I actually. you know, WATCHED IT. In execution, I found it to be terrible, no matter how much I tried to like it. And if you think you understand it SO much better than me that you\'re willing to accuse me of outright lying about having watched something I clearly stated I wanted to like and understand many times because I had a different experience than you, perhaps you\'d actually like to enlighten me by, for example, backing up your claims and pointing out a single character who isn\'t some combination of boring, obnoxious, or stupid, and why you think they fall outside of those categories? Of course my review was terrible, I had 2986 characters to discuss something I could\'ve talked about for that many words, what\'s your excuse for contributing nothing to the discussion besides shouting \"YOU\'RE WRONG YOU\'RE WRONG YOU\'RE WRONG\"?
  • GarnetRebeller96
  • 1st Apr 16
Don't preach to me about trying to contribute the topic of the thread when you outright admit to this review to being terrible. Any person can still make a good review within 2986 characters. Don't use that a crutch for writing a terrible review. If you knew it was going to be bbad why bother making a review? You claim the execution,is terrible but all of your reasons on claiming the execution is bad pretty much consist of you outright ignoring content of the shows and dismissing a lot of elements in the show in favor of childish bashing. And then you took another step by outright bashing the fans that enjoy the show in your so called contributing comment.

Please spare me, your ranting.

  • dasuberkaiser
  • 3rd Apr 16
You going to do anything beyond insult me and ramble about how wrong and terrible I am because reasons? No? \'Kay, move along now.
  • Nazo
  • 4th Apr 16
\"Garnet has all the personality of a brick. In most scenes you could replace it with a tape recorder loaded with noncommittal grunts and I wouldn\'t notice. \"

I think this might have something to do with some people believing you didn\'t watch the whole show. As the show progresses, Garnet gradually warms up to both other characters and the viewers. Some episodes (like \"Keeping it Together\") are wholy based around her fears and inner turmoil.

Anyway, I think it\'s pointless to argue about this review. You obviously aren\'t in the show\'s intended demographic (I\'m not talking about age here, but rather, who the show appeals to). I don\'t think you could understand why some of us like this show so much, and there\'s nothing wrong with that.
  • GarnetRebeller96
  • 4th Apr 16
^^ You mean similar to how you insulted fans that like this show. Saying how fans are shallow minded enough to enjoy this show which is apparently on the same levels of a character eating a cracker?

Pot call kettle black, dear. ~
  • dasuberkaiser
  • 5th Apr 16
^What the fu...what are you even trying to get across there, learn to speak English before you try to talk to me. All I'm saying is I'm making observations and criticisms and relating my experience with the show and it's fanbase, you know LIKE A CRITIC and you're just sitting their throwing a spiteful temper tantrum over someone not liking the things you like (no impossible how could they they must be lying it's the only explanation they couldn't possibly just have a different opinion) and expecting me to take you seriously.

^^And just who does it appeal to, exactly?
  • GarnetRebeller96
  • 6th Apr 16
I made my point clear, It's not my fault you can't read. And I wouldn't care if some person, that made a childish rant of a review, state they can't take me seriously. I don't gain anything of value from that.

And you shouldn't talk about people throwing fit over things they like, when you yourself, threw temper tantrum over people liking this show. And outright called there taste shallow. Being a critic doesn't warrant being a dick, buddy.
  • KarkatTheDalek
  • 6th Apr 16
Okay, first of all:

\"I tried to summarize the plot of season 1 in 2 sentences, and realized I was writing a premise, not a plot.\"

If you told me to describe a work in two sentences, I wouldn\'t call that a plot summary, I\'d call it a premise. I don\'t think you can describe the plot of a work so briefly without it sounding like a premise.

Why do you refer to the Gems as \"it\"? They may not be organic beings, but they are sapient and refer to themselves with female pronouns - I should think that would be an indication to use female pronouns.

As for all the science elements...why exactly does all of this matter? This clearly isn\'t a show that\'s going for realism, and quite frankly, plot and characters are considerably more important. They\'re aliens because Rebecca Sugar and the others wanted to tell a fantasy/science fiction story about aliens who were stranded to Earth and fought in a rebellion against their homeworld, and would eventually go on to raise the son/reincarnation of their deceased leader. Speaking of which, that\'s why the Gems are so forgiving of Steven - not only does he remind them of Rose, but he\'s a kid, and thus still learning. And despite what you might believe, he actually does learn - you can chart his growth over the course of the first season.

As for the other gems, they do have reasons for their behavior, as well as intricacies in said behavior, which become more apparent over time. Maybe the pacing could be better, but I think letting them take some time with it works, as gradual buildup allows for a much greater impact than if they just dumped it on us early on. Besides, a lot of episodes would lay the groundwork for what was to come, even if it wasn\'t really apparent at the time.

  • GarnetRebeller96
  • 7th Apr 16
^ Judging by how inaccurate this review is,it\'s pretty obvious this guy didn\'t even watch all of season 1.
  • dasuberkaiser
  • 7th Apr 16
^^^Oh, so when I try to explain my my reasons for not liking something to try and make others understand my point of view, it's a "childish rant", but when you do nothing but spit venom it's...what exactly? You really can't claim the high ground considering at this point you're basically just trolling.

^^I guess that was badly worded, what I was trying to say was if you attempt to concisely summarize the important events of the first season and what we learned, you end up with the set up to a story, but barely any actual story: all those 52 episodes accomplish is setting up the basic setting and conflict before actually going anywhere with those. Again, 52 episodes just to make it clear what the show is supposed to be about!

And I'm glad you noticed the "it" thing. "It" is how one would normally refer to a genderless lump of rock, but here it's use was meant to draw attention to how wrong it feels to so refer to beings that are so obviously portrayed as female within the show itself, and thus how laughable the claims of them being genderless are.

I don't know where everyone's getting this idea that I think it's a serious issue that the show isn't rigorously scientifically accurate. Last time I checked, the several paragraphs of complaints I wrote were more on the subject of the lack of consistency and coherent internal logic. And if "the plot and characters" are all that matters, why have these fantastical elements at all? Why did they feel a story about a boy growing up and interacting with his adopted family needed to involve aliens and magic if they clearly care so little about those elements?

You people keep going on about the supposed development and growth these characters have, but since you never give any examples, all I can say in response is "No they don't".

^Inaccurate how, exactly? I'll say it again since apparently no one hear can understand what I say the first time, if all you're going to do is sling around baseless accusations of me lying with no support besides "I'm right and you're wrong so fuck you", you're a troll.
  • KarkatTheDalek
  • 8th Apr 16
Honestly, if that was the point you were trying to make with the "It" thing, I don't think it worked - it just made you come off as rather scummy. As for the gender thing, I suppose there's a discussion to have about that, but it's not one that I'm really interested in having, at least not here.

As for a summary of the first season, how about this:

"Steven Universe is the story of Steven Universe, a young boy who lives with a trio of women with strange powers called the Crystal Gems, who include their powerful, stoic leader, Garnet; the perfectionist, intellectual Pearl; and the reckless, often immature Amethyst. Steven is part-Gem himself, and thus the Gems seek to teach him about the powers that he possesses, often taking him to their fights with strange, crystalline monsters. Overtime, Steven learns more about the Gems, as well his mother, Rose Quartz, who was the Gem's leader before she gave up her physical form to give birth to him. Steven also grows closer to several humans as well, including his father, Greg Universe, and Connie, a shy girl who quickly becomes Steven's best friend. The gems also teach him about fusion, a technique that allows Gems to merge their physical forms and minds to create single, more powerful Gem. He encounters a strange lion (who he names Lion), who he takes as a pet, and eventually encounters a powerful Gem named Lapis Lazuli, who was imprisoned in a mirror for thousands of years, and eventually leaves to find the Gem Homeworld. Steven also learns that the monsters that Gems fight are actually corrupted versions of other Gems.

Trouble eventually arrives in the form of Peridot, an agent of the Homeworld who is interested in Earth for unknown reasons. It is revealed that the Crystal Gems had come to Earth as part of an invasion to strip the planet of its natural resources - Rose Quartz protested this plan, and led a Rebellion that eventually expelled the Homeworld Gems from the planet. Peridot eventually discovers the presence of the Crystal Gems on Earth, and arrives on the planet with the hulking warrior Gem know as Jasper, along with Lapis Lazuli, who is their prisoner. They capture the Crystal Gems, but Steven is able to escape and free them - along the way, he discovers that Garnet is actually a permanent fusion of two Gems, Ruby and Sapphire. Peridot manages to escape in the confusion, while Jasper attempts to destroy the Gems by fusing with Lapis to form the monstrous Malachite - however, Lapis' will wins out, and she manages to seal the two at the bottom of the ocean."

I might have missed a few things here and there, but I think I hit most of the important bits. I certainly think there are enough events and revelations to fill a season, at least.

As for characters, I could definitely do an analysis of my favorite, Pearl, if you want.

Honestly, I don't really care about the "consistency" stuff, so I'm not going to argue about that with you.

  • GarnetRebeller96
  • 8th Apr 16
^ I am lost for word if you consider this trolling,
  • Nazo
  • 8th Apr 16
I gave an example of development: Garnet becomes more open and redy to show her emotions as the show goes on. And I genuinly think that she\'s not the only example: Steven acts much more childish in the first few episodes, Amathyst starts takin things just a bit more seriously, Connie learns to be more of an extrovert...
  • Pannic
  • 8th Apr 16
Oh boy. For one thing, \"52 episodes\" might seem like a lot... but it\'s two episodes per half-hour airing. Compare with, say, a 12 or 13-episode hour-long show like Fargo or Jessica Jones and the runtime is roughly similar.

Also... you\'re complaining that the characters are flat and one-dimensional, which is honestly just baffling. I don\'t see how you can get \"just three traits between them\" when you have things like Pearl\'s feelings for Rose Quartz (and her loneliness at her loss), Amethyst\'s sense of self-loathing because of her origins (seriously, the episode where they went to the Kindergarten was a fucking gut-punch), or the reveal about how Garnet is a fusion, which is crucial to her reactions to other things (i.e. her horror at the Kindergarten experiments and or her disgust with Pearl in season 2). It\'s true that the characters are built around archetypes (high-strung, rambunctious, and stoics), but they\'re archetypes that complement each other well for the sake of comedy and there\'s a lot of work done to work from the base.
  • dasuberkaiser
  • 8th Apr 16
^^^^That summary was completely factually correct. But the inflated wordcount doesn\'t disguise the fact that little of consequence came from any of the events described, and the only thing the few things that could generously describe as major plot-relevant events accomplished is just setting up \"Hey, there are bad guys who don\'t like us. Just thought you should know that. And now back to filler.\" In any case, it\'s good for you that you don\'t care about whether your stories make a lick of sense or are more full of holes than a swiss cheese that\'s had a machine gun emptied into it, because clearly the writers don\'t either.

^^^So I don\'t have to listen to you anymore? Good!

^^That\'s not what I meant by examples. You\'re making vague, nonspecific claims with no evidence, which can therefore be dismissed with no evidence: \"No they don\'t\".
  • KarkatTheDalek
  • 8th Apr 16
I mean, it actually does make perfect sense to me, so maybe the problem\'s you?

Anyway, this argument is honestly rather tiresome for me, so I don\'t think I\'ll be participating anymore (although this could change). If anyone else would like to cite some textual examples here, they\'re welcome to it.
  • Nazo
  • 8th Apr 16
^^I\'m just saying what I got from the show by watching it.

I have to ask you something: are you curious as to why some of us like this show so much? If you are, then I guess I could rant on about the characters and their motives, or like, write a google doc and link you to it. If you are not, then i\'m just gonna disappear from this conversation.
  • dasuberkaiser
  • 8th Apr 16
^^Considering you were previously basically saying I would enjoy it more if I lowered my standards, maybe.

^That\'s what I\'m doing here. I mean, it\'s not like I don\'t understand WHY people like this show, rather I don\'t understand why people like THIS SHOW, if that makes sense: when they go on about great writing and well-rounded characters and DUH FEELS and everything else I hear about in every single review, I\'m like \"Yeah, wow, that sounds awesome\", that\'s why I watched the show in the first place, because I saw how much other people loved it and I it sounded like something I could really grow to love to. But I watched it, and no matter how hard I looked I couldn\'t see any of that for the life of me. As I put it so concisely up top, it just wasn\'t good. So...give me your best shot, I guess?
  • KarkatTheDalek
  • 9th Apr 16
^Your standards in regards to the magic and sci-fi stuff do seem rather high. I personally feel it\'s consistent enough, but I\'ll be honest, how many shows are that consistent in this regard, especially ones targeted towards younger audience (although older fans can still enjoy it, of course). I think Avatar did a pretty good job with that, but that\'s the only one that comes to mind.

I\'ll be honest, I don\'t really give a lot of thought to universe mechanics - fusion is probably the one that holds my interest the most, but that\'s probably the one that\'s both delved into the most and the one that is the most important to the plot and characters.

I\'m curious, were there any specific things from the show that were praised when your first heard about the show? Like, specific events or characters?
  • GarnetRebeller96
  • 9th Apr 16
^^ Does it take rocket science to realize that not every praise work will appeal to everyone? Is that so totally hard to comprehend? Like really? Is this something you truly can't process?

It doesn't take a high or even a low IQ to process that.
  • Pannic
  • 9th Apr 16
Details on the \"mechanics\" or \"how the stuff works\" are... only important in certain kinds of stories. If you\'re doing some story speculating on a piece of technology that could exist in the future or what to do some kind of exploration on the impact that a technology or magic thing could have on society or a person\'s life, then those kinds of in-depth explorations are useful. Things like FTL travel in Ender\'s Game or AI in the works of Isaac Asimov are examples.

But when you\'re doing a cartoon show for children that focuses more on character building and adventure, those kinds of things really aren\'t important. Would the show benefit from a magibabble explanation about how Pearl\'s holograms work? All I can think of are those terrible Harry Potter fanfictions where the author gets so pre-occupied trying to explain things that they forget to tell an actual story. I mean, you\'ve complained about the pacing, and that\'s a valid issue, but unless I\'m mistaking you that\'d just make it worse. I mean, when I watch Star Wars I don\'t want them to give me an explanation for how lightsabers deflect blaster bolts.

Furthermore, at no point do I think that the gem\'s abilities fall into New Powers as the Plot Demands. Most of the cases I can think of where a new power or ability or the like is revealed, it tends to be something that\'s shown or at least discussed early in the episode; for example, Pearl\'s holograms, or the Sugilite or Sardonyx fusions; all things that are shown early on in the episode, and the actual episode tends to revolve around a conflict that\'s related to that. For example, we have an episode where it\'s revealed that if a gem\'s body is destroyed, they just need some time to regenerate. That happens early in the episode, but the actual crux of the episode is Steven coming to grips with Pearl not being there for an extended period of time. That\'s not quite the same as just pulling a new ability out of the ass to beat a bad guy in the last five minutes. And for my part, the material shown has been largely internally consistent.
  • dasuberkaiser
  • 9th Apr 16
^^^That's kind of the point, few reviews would say anything really specific beyond "the characters are so well-rounded and deep and interesting" and "the writing's so good" and "there are times that made me cry". Some gave a brief, simple overview of some major characters, but never mentioned what about them was so compelling, specifically. I barely ever see individual events singled out for anything more than a vague "this part's where it starts getting really good" or "this part's so emotional".

^^Well you seemed pretty hostile to me saying I didn't like it, so maybe you should take a look in the mirror.

^I'm about ready to give up on this topic because it's clear at this point THAT NOT ONE OF YOU HAS ACTUALLY READ A SINGLE THING I'VE WRITTEN.
  • GarnetRebeller96
  • 10th Apr 16
Oh boy the pathetic "NO U" argument. I criticize your posts because I find your reasons and this review to be weak, not because you don't like the show. There's a bloody difference.
  • dasuberkaiser
  • 12th Apr 16
^Not that you've ever explained why, because that might expose the fact that you have no argument. Or maybe you have a brilliant argument, but I wouldn't no because you seem content to never go further than "you're wrong because I say so and I'm right and you're wrong so you're wrong. Na-na-na-na!!" Anyway, if it's such a pathetic argument, why do you use it?
  • GarnetRebeller96
  • 15th Apr 16
Because if you bother to pay attention to my post, It\'s all about this review being badly written. You even admitted to it being a terrible review. Where your crutch of a defense is that you we\'re limit to how many words you can type.

Lame..

  • dasuberkaiser
  • 15th Apr 16
Yes, it is indeed all about this review BEING badly written, and absolutely nothing else. Nothing else like, for example, WHY it\'s badly written.

Lame indeed.
  • Shokew
  • 15th Apr 16
To whomever wrote this review - I agree with most of it. I\'d rather watch Clarence and We Bare Bears over this overrated SJW trash, to be brutally. No matter how good this show thinks it is, it will always be thus, in my opinion.

Seriously, though - show a little more pride in yourself and grow a thicker skin, m8. You should not be doubting yourself like this just because of some negative comments. MAN UP, PLEASE.

Peace.
  • GarnetRebeller96
  • 17th Apr 16
^ SJW trash? Seriously? I guess diversity just doesn't exist in your narrow minded world does it? I notice most people who tend to rag on the show, uses it diversity as a crutch to bash the show.

Like seriously, since when is being diverse consider such a sin these days?

^^ Doing the immature "NO U" mindset again? And I already explain why this review is terrible in my original comment.
  • dasuberkaiser
  • 17th Apr 16
^You might think your spouting a handful of vague, unbacked buzzwords in your first comment qualified as giving reasons, just as you might think my previous comment qualified as a \"no you\" argument, or that the other guy\'s comment qualified as claiming \"diversity is a sin\". You would be equally, obviously, and flagrantly wrong on all counts.
  • GarnetRebeller96
  • 18th Apr 16
^ What are you? That guy spokesperson? He can defend his point on his own buddy. That comment wasn't even directed towards you.

And I honestly don't have to proof even further that this is a terrible review when you bloody admitted it. You basically said it for me.

Besides all this comment amounts to is " U WRONG; I SAZ SO!!!'

  • KarkatTheDalek
  • 18th Apr 16
\"SJW trash\"

...How, exactly, does it qualify as that to you?
  • GarnetRebeller96
  • 18th Apr 16
I seriously want to hear the answer to that. I bet it\'ll fall in the \"too much diversity\" camp.
  • dasuberkaiser
  • 18th Apr 16
^^^As I pointed out, you\'re making assumptions and putting words in his mouth. And no, you don\'t have to \"proof even further\" anything, because first you\'d have to \"proof\" something at all. Also because you can\'t \"proof\" anything because proof is a noun. And I don\'t need to give any more reason beyond \"I say so\" for claiming you\'re wrong, because claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I said my review was terrible because it was way too short, so it was very brief and cursory, and I didn\'t have time to go into detail about anything or mention a lot of important points. So if you\'re saying your only complaints about it are exactly that, which seems to indeed be what you are saying here, you have a very aggressive and confrontational way of asking for elaboration and clarification.
  • GarnetRebeller96
  • 18th Apr 16
We both agree this is a terrible review, nothing more needs to be said. I\'m pretty much done with you.
  • dasuberkaiser
  • 18th Apr 16
^Thank you for ignoring everything I just said, that was really appreciated. Because, that is, it reinforces to anyone still paying attention what a close-minded judgemental conceited childish whiny prick you are. If you would actually hold to your claim about pissing off unlike the last time I told you to move along after you showed you had nothing to say, that would be appreciated even more.
  • GarnetRebeller96
  • 18th Apr 16
I don\'t want to hear a person calling me a close-minded judgmental conceited childish whiny prick, when you threw a childish and overly pathetic tantrum over people liking this show and not understanding why.

Please, spare your hypocritical ranting to someone who cares.
  • RabidTanker
  • 19th Apr 16
Strawman review is boring. The Gems\' abilites are reused from time to time. The pacing is an issue. The lack of personality? Did you even watch every episode?

I rate this review 2/10: Would not link to again.
  • Fighteer
  • 19th Apr 16
Both dasuberkaiser and GarnetRebeller96 have been suspended for rudeness. I\'ll probably delete this after we\'ve resolved that issue.
  • marcellX
  • 21st Apr 16
@Fighteer

I don\'t need to give any more reason beyond \"I say so\" for claiming you\'re wrong

Yeah that might be for the best.
  • warner14
  • 21st Jul 16
I don\'t exaggerate when I say I thought this review was completely awful and even with the long character count, it\'s one of the worst written \"reviews\" I\'ve ever read, period. Not only do you show zero examples to prove your points for context but you say \"it just...wasn\'t...good\" as if you assume your opinion as factual (a pet peeve of mine) and you are shitting on other people\'s opinions of about 16 OTHER reviewers who explained themselves proper on why they either like it or not. It comes off as a cynical and insulting rant than a review where you\'re telling people why they\'re apparently \"wrong\" for liking the show and you\'re just being an asshole about it.

Also, I doubt you even paid attention to the plot since crucial and important details are there. You just won\'t mention any due to your arrogant attitude. Look, you can dislike the show, that\'s fine but there has to be some actual thought put into the review. This doesn\'t and it\'s clear to me you don\'t give a shit what people think. Well I\'m here to tell you this review sucks and I\'ve actually watched every episode so far as of this writing. Please, put more effort in next time by providing examples so I won\';t have to write another long comment calling you out on terrible reviewing.
  • fairygirl567
  • 21st Jul 16
Whatever hate ttyl, one less fan won\'t hurt this awesome show.
  • Arial
  • 30th Mar 17
Note unmarked spoilers in this comment.

Say, you mentioned that they should do something about bringing back and using plot elements. Let\'s experiment with that:

In \"Island Adventure\", mask island is shown for the first time. In \"Watermelon Steven\", Steven creates an army of watermelon people who flee to the bottom of the ocean. At the end of Season 1, Malachite is stuck in a fusion at the bottom of the ocean, and could cause harm to themselves and/or others. Cue opening to season 3:

Steven wakes up to find himself in the body of a Watermelon Steven on Mask island. He is then offered as tribute to appease Malachite, who is trapped there in full rage. Steven wakes up, and Peridot warns them about how the earthquakes that just occurred were probably due to the cluster, which was probably about to take form and destroy the planet. Steven then warns the others that it Malachite, and the gems defeat her.

Seemingly unrelated plot points bring a climatic battle into view.
  • Nazo
  • 30th Mar 17
Hey, I thought people had forgotten about this, but since it made it to front page again, I would like to add something to the discussion:

From the moment dasuberkaiser posted this review, it\'s ben clear that they doesn\'t get why so many of us like the show. And you know what? That\'s okay. It\'s not always evident how or why some floks think one way or the other. This show has elicited some strong feelings out of some of us, but it would take hundreds of comments to explain why. In order to explain why we like the show, it seems we would have to go through a lot of episodes searching for examples of character developement, interesting interactions between the characters, and so on. Of course, I\'m too lazy to do that, and so are most of you, I asume.

But there\'s no need for us to do any of that. It has already been done.

Hey, dasuberkaiser, do you know what a liveblogger is? A liveblogger is a person who watches/reads something (usually for the first time) and posts their thoughs online for the curious to read. The often do stuff like chracter analysis and speculation. And it just so happens that Steven Universe is a very popular show for livebloggers. So, I\'m not asking you to read these liveblogs if you think you\'ll find them boring (and you probably will, considering your distaste for the show), but... if you ever feel curious about why the show is so popular, if you want excamples of what makes it good, here are some popular livebloggers. All of them have an index so you can read individual episode\'s reactions.

loreweaver-universe.tumblr.com (is up to date)

zephyrthejester.tumblr.com (is up to date)

ponyforyou.tumblr.com (has watched like 20 episodes)

liveblogging-and-such.tumblr.com (has watched season one)
  • YasminPerry
  • 1st Apr 17
Jesus H. Christ, people, not everybody has to love your goddamn cartoon show. Jeez.
  • KarkatTheDalek
  • 2nd Apr 17
Well, no, but I think there\'s something to say about responding to criticism that you don\'t think is fair, per se.

In order to post comments, you need to

Get Known
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/review_comments.php?id=15755