TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Steven Universe

Go To

Ruise Nyanpasu~ from your subconscious Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: It's not my fault I'm not popular!
Nyanpasu~
#31601: May 17th 2016 at 9:09:12 PM

What Lapis did wasn't okay, and I wouldn't go so far as to say she was "temporarily insane" or anything but it's very easy to understand her desperation. Most people would probably act rashly and lash out after such an experience. Not "temporary insanity" but "fit of passion," "emotional outburst." . She's a wildcard, a firecracker.

Loves feel-good animation a whole lot.
GarnetRebeller96 Since: Nov, 2015
#31602: May 17th 2016 at 9:11:23 PM

[up][up][up] You we're giving reasons to justify her actions, that's why I use the term. And you later agreed that it did.

edited 17th May '16 9:12:42 PM by GarnetRebeller96

AdricDePsycho Rock on, Gold Dust Woman from Never Going Back Again Since: Oct, 2014 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Rock on, Gold Dust Woman
#31603: May 17th 2016 at 9:11:28 PM

OK, can somebody dig up the quote from the Crewniverse where they said there are no real villains or whatever? Because I wanna double check on that. I keep hearing people saying it all over the web and I've never gotten a source.

Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?
xanderiskander Since: Mar, 2012
#31604: May 17th 2016 at 9:12:05 PM

Yeah, I've heard that said a lot, but I've never seen the quote either.

[up][up] I should have been more specific for sure. That wasn't what I meant. I just wanted to make a quick reply.

edited 17th May '16 9:17:49 PM by xanderiskander

honeyishrunkmyself Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
#31605: May 17th 2016 at 9:12:09 PM

ALOT of mentally disabled people think that they are speaking clearly when they aren't actually. Just because what she said made sense backwards doesn't mean she wasn't mentally damaged.

it did is entirely conjectural
Its not conjectural, its logical. I'm pretty sure i would do the same shit if i was in lapis' place. Being trapped in a And I Must Scream situation for that long with almost no one to talk to.

edited 17th May '16 9:13:41 PM by honeyishrunkmyself

KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#31606: May 17th 2016 at 9:15:03 PM

It's speculates a conclusion based off of reasoning based on information assumed rather than given. It's conjecture.

Even more telling, it's based off of the idea of how the characters would react if this were real life rather than a narrative, which also hurts how logical it can be: "I would go nuts if X happened to me" -> "Lapis went nuts because I would've gone nuts" is a noticeable logical leap.

edited 17th May '16 9:17:02 PM by KnownUnknown

honeyishrunkmyself Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
#31607: May 17th 2016 at 9:16:54 PM

Most narrative is based on real life. And there's nothing wrong with conjecture if it makes a lot of sense from evidence.

"I would go nuts if X happened to me" -> "Lapis went nuts because I would've gone nuts" is a noticeable logical leap.
Want me to rephrase it? Lapis went nuts because thats what anyone would have done stuck in a horrible situation like that with no one to talk to and surrounded by people who i fought against and very much hate, who don't seem to realize that i am alive.

edited 17th May '16 9:19:28 PM by honeyishrunkmyself

KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#31608: May 17th 2016 at 9:17:47 PM

That narrative is as a general form based on real life, and thus a given narrative must adhere to a given real life conclusion, is also a logical leap.

And there's no problem with it being conjecture and speculation, as long as it's acknowledged as being speculation.

edited 17th May '16 9:20:19 PM by KnownUnknown

xanderiskander Since: Mar, 2012
#31609: May 17th 2016 at 9:20:32 PM

It's not "he would go crazy" if he would be trapped in a mirror, and ignored for years. Anyone would. Solitary confinement makes people crazy.

honeyishrunkmyself Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
#31610: May 17th 2016 at 9:21:01 PM

"And there's no problem with it being conjecture and speculation"

And yet your okay with completely shooting down my theory because its "conjecture"

[up]this guy gets it.

edited 17th May '16 9:21:17 PM by honeyishrunkmyself

smokeycut Since: Mar, 2013
#31611: May 17th 2016 at 9:21:30 PM

this interview with Rebecca Sugar.

In which she states there's no "iconic villain" character, which rules out Jasper and even YD as villains. Antagonists? Yes. Evil? No. And that opens them ip to redemption.

KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#31612: May 17th 2016 at 9:21:34 PM

[up][up][up] Again, people have gone crazy in situations like that. And it could have. But saying it did for Lapis is speculation, because the plot gives us no reason to say it did.

As I said before, it's assuming that the situation must have made her go crazy, and then trying to use that assumption to prove that it made her go crazy. It's just going around in a circle.

edited 17th May '16 9:23:36 PM by KnownUnknown

AdricDePsycho Rock on, Gold Dust Woman from Never Going Back Again Since: Oct, 2014 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Rock on, Gold Dust Woman
#31613: May 17th 2016 at 9:21:51 PM

Oh my god, please stop. This conversation has gone on long enough.

Here's the full quote from the interview:

"But we won't necessarily see that many iconic villains on Steven Universe, says Sugar — the Gems aren't dealing with a particular person, but something "bigger than that." There's not "really a singular enemy." Instead, the conflict will be within the group, and it'll be about Steven figuring out what's right."

Somebody else dissect that, I'm too tired for this.

edited 17th May '16 9:23:43 PM by AdricDePsycho

Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?
xanderiskander Since: Mar, 2012
#31614: May 17th 2016 at 9:23:31 PM

[up][up][up]That was before any villains were even introduced into the show. The reason she said Steven's dealing with problems within the group, is because that's literally all he was dealing with at the time. They didn't even introduce villains into the show until 2 years later.

There's also no mention of "no evil characters" in that article.

edited 17th May '16 9:25:27 PM by xanderiskander

KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#31615: May 17th 2016 at 9:26:08 PM

But we won't necessarily see that many iconic villains on Steven Universe, says Sugar — the Gems aren't dealing with a particular person, but something "bigger than that." There's not "really a singular enemy." Instead, the conflict will be within the group, and it'll be about Steven figuring out what's right.

Hmm...

Well, that's definitely true. Even with YD in the mix, the biggest challenge to the Gems has always been how they deal with things among themselves. Every time the series sets something up as "us vs them," it throws a wrench into it.

edited 17th May '16 9:32:39 PM by KnownUnknown

honeyishrunkmyself Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
#31616: May 17th 2016 at 9:26:51 PM

[up][up]The crewiverse had the enter story of season one planned out from the start, so no.

[up][up][up][up] From an story telling prospective, it would be really fucking dumb if the crewiverse had an character do something evil with no good justification for why she did it. Amusing that the crewiverse are good story tellers, i am amusing they went by the logic that being stuck like in an And I Must Scream situation like that drives you insane.

edited 17th May '16 9:27:03 PM by honeyishrunkmyself

hcobb Since: Jan, 2001
#31617: May 17th 2016 at 9:29:26 PM

Rose isn't dead. We know exactly what she is and where she is. Her gem isn't even cracked.

randomness4 Ghost '11 from The Land of Inconvenience Since: Sep, 2011
Ghost '11
#31618: May 17th 2016 at 9:29:45 PM

Lapis Lazuli got to communicate for the first time in Steven's hands.

Rules of the Internet 45. Rule 45 is a lie. Check out my art if you notice.
xanderiskander Since: Mar, 2012
#31619: May 17th 2016 at 9:30:48 PM

[up][up][up]I'm saying she phrased it that way, because that's all that was relevant to talk about at the time. She said there were no "iconic villains" in the show, because in 2013, there literally weren't any. We didn't get any until 2015-2016

edited 17th May '16 9:31:46 PM by xanderiskander

AdricDePsycho Rock on, Gold Dust Woman from Never Going Back Again Since: Oct, 2014 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Rock on, Gold Dust Woman
#31620: May 17th 2016 at 9:31:56 PM

Somebody just ask Ian or somebody about this to get clarification.

Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?
honeyishrunkmyself Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
#31621: May 17th 2016 at 9:33:49 PM

[up] agreed

You know what, i am done with this stupid argument, last time something like this happened, i almost got banned because i couldn't control myself, don't that to happen again.

edited 17th May '16 9:33:57 PM by honeyishrunkmyself

RhymeBeat True colors from Eastern Standard Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: In Lesbians with you
True colors
#31622: May 17th 2016 at 9:34:59 PM

I think she was vaguely referring to how the problems with Homeworld are Inherent in the System. You tell me, if all of the diamonds were magically erased from the face of Homeworld, would all the classism, imperialism, and anti-fusion bigotry go away?

The Crystal Caverns A bird's gotta sing.
KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#31623: May 17th 2016 at 9:35:33 PM

I can buy nobody being "evil" (at least, not evil like The Lich), at least so far.

They did a surprisingly good job of giving Peridot a colonialist mindset that didn't acknowledge the things she was doing as wrong or the people she was doing it to as meaningful, so she simply saw herself as a decent person just doing her job and the Gems as a bunch of nutjobs who wouldn't let her do it. Lapis was a Broken Bird lashing out a planet she despises and a group she thinks made her suffer for millenia, and was so desperate to get home that she would do anything.

I think Jasper seems more "evil" than either of them because of portrayal rather than actions - it's because she's the most two dimensional antagonist the series has had so far. In the two parter, there's little to her but being smug and abrasive and violent. But we also know that the writers have wanted to show extra layers to her, so that could very well not be the case - one day, it may be like if we judged Peridot solely by her first appearance.

YD is the first antagonist besides Jasper to really feel like a "villain," which may be why she's been so behind the scenes. And even she is motivated by spite, so while I don't expect her to get a sympathetic backstory she could very well get an understandable one.

edited 17th May '16 9:38:07 PM by KnownUnknown

hcobb Since: Jan, 2001
#31624: May 17th 2016 at 9:36:08 PM

What if the Diamonds were exposed by a charming boy adventurer in a big lie?

AdricDePsycho Rock on, Gold Dust Woman from Never Going Back Again Since: Oct, 2014 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Rock on, Gold Dust Woman
#31625: May 17th 2016 at 9:41:05 PM

I just messaged Ian on Tumblr to ask about this. I highly doubt he'll respond, but it's worth a shot.

Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?

Total posts: 63,336
Top