TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Steven Universe

Go To

darkabomination Since: Mar, 2012
#43701: Sep 25th 2016 at 10:39:27 AM

Okay let's not bring fandom stereotypes into this. Every, and I mean every fandom has its bad apples. That doesn't make SU or its fans particularly better or worse than others. It's an unfortunate event, but painting a fandom with the same black brush is hardly the sensible response.

When you bring accusations with exclamation marks and generalizations, then that's drama importation.

While I'd prefer to stay out of the race topic at hand, it's a fairly civil discussion that many here seem to care about while remaining calm.

SalFishFin Since: Jan, 2001
#43702: Sep 25th 2016 at 10:39:33 AM

Oh for the love of-

No. Nobody should be telling anyone else to kill themself. But if people are bullying you on tumblr, and you really can't handle it? Delete your blog. Three fucking mouse clicks.

How am I supposed to deal with the fact that at any moment, while I'm doing any thing, a police officer can murder me for no reason and get a paid vacation, while the media finds the worst possible picture of me so their story can drag me across the coals?

edited 25th Sep '16 10:39:44 AM by SalFishFin

Yinyang107 from the True North (Decatroper) Relationship Status: Tongue-tied
#43703: Sep 25th 2016 at 10:41:01 AM

[up]What does that have to do with anything.

Beatman1 Since: Feb, 2014 Relationship Status: Gone fishin'
#43704: Sep 25th 2016 at 10:43:32 AM

[up] That's my point. They're not comparable. At all. In context or reasoning.

SalFishFin Since: Jan, 2001
#43705: Sep 25th 2016 at 10:44:21 AM

I brought up that stereotypes are life and death for people like me, they brought up the two incidents where people were bullied on tumblr to near suicide because of how they drew offensive portrayals of Steven Universe characters, as if they're on the same level of oppression. And then I got a little heated. I wonder why?

edited 25th Sep '16 10:45:16 AM by SalFishFin

Beatman1 Since: Feb, 2014 Relationship Status: Gone fishin'
#43707: Sep 25th 2016 at 10:49:19 AM

[up][up] I think you misinterpreted what I meant to say, and maybe that's my fault. My point is that the issues behind stereotypes and media viewpoints are very complicated and affect people in a sadly, very real, very fatal way.

But it's always this show that's getting overanalyzed and over examined when there are way more obvious and way worse examples of which to direct rage at.

Meanwhile, this fandom of overanalysis has buillied two people to near death for reasons that have nothing to do with race.

edited 25th Sep '16 10:50:19 AM by Beatman1

SalFishFin Since: Jan, 2001
#43708: Sep 25th 2016 at 10:53:28 AM

I literally just explained, three times, why that comparison is offensive. Stop making it.

GabrieltheThird Anvilicious Since: Apr, 2012
Anvilicious
#43709: Sep 25th 2016 at 10:59:02 AM

I still haven't watched the entire thing, popped in to check since I've commented on the thread a while back and there's how many pages? So the sane thing would clearly stay out of this, but seeing as this is something I was thinking of when I watched it, I'll bring up the following:

Diving too deep into a conversation on this, people should probably try and decide whether they want to judge this as a children's show or an adult one. Because the standards for the two have to be different. Most people around here, due to the nature of these forums, are probably seasoned consumers of popular media, able to see multiple meta levels of the narrative and reflect those to what they know and understand about the world.

The children watching this do not have all those tools. They lack the development and experience. If you plan on aiming your work mainly at children, you don't have to make things too simple but you can't go overboard with the meta level symbolism either. Keeping things so that it's approachable by the younger audience can sometimes make the work have some unfortunate implications on more comprehensive analysis than was intended.

What I've seen of Steven Universe, it's an excellent kid's show. Plenty of messages about compassion and understanding tied to a well written package that doesn't underestimate its audience. It even has a good deal of things for the older viewers to enjoy.

To an adult the show might have more problems, and I'm not talking only about race/gender politics but structure, animation, etc. Should a kid's show be judged on these failings?

My answer is partly. But I can't help feeling that it's a bit like eating cat food and then complaining that it doesn't taste that good. Not the intended purpose.

(Or maybe SU isn't aimed at children. I'm not that familiar with the average audience on Cartoon Network. Anyway, this is enough me prancing around on my high horse. Will bow out now and apologise for barging in at all.)

edited 25th Sep '16 10:59:59 AM by GabrieltheThird

Beatman1 Since: Feb, 2014 Relationship Status: Gone fishin'
#43710: Sep 25th 2016 at 10:59:11 AM

[up] [up]I'm not comparing them. I'm saying one has nothing to do with the other.

[up] It's a children's show. The target audience is supposed to be children as are the spinoff products.

edited 25th Sep '16 11:00:18 AM by Beatman1

AdricDePsycho Rock on, Gold Dust Woman from Never Going Back Again Since: Oct, 2014 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Rock on, Gold Dust Woman
#43711: Sep 25th 2016 at 11:05:08 AM

It's not solely for children. Cartoons in general aren't solely for children.

And I'm gonna bow out for now, because I'm off to the movies. Try not to get thumped, anyone.

Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?
smokeycut Since: Mar, 2013
#43712: Sep 25th 2016 at 11:06:24 AM

SU is a kid's show, which is why the messages it sends have to he carefully considered, so you don't send the wrong ones.

SU has sent the message that liking other girls or boys is okay and normal. SU has sent the message that you can't ignore your problems and let them pile up. It's sent a bunch of great messages.

But a child could also see Jasper and how she acts, and then grow up to think that Butch lesbians are violent, predatory brutes.

That's why you need to be careful about how you portray characters.

superboy313 Since: May, 2015
#43713: Sep 25th 2016 at 11:08:48 AM

So what Character Alignment do you think the Diamonds would fall into?

edited 25th Sep '16 11:20:10 AM by superboy313

Beatman1 Since: Feb, 2014 Relationship Status: Gone fishin'
#43714: Sep 25th 2016 at 11:11:02 AM

[up][up][up] While Peripherally Demographic is always a thing, the show is targeted towards children. That's not to invalidate older viewers, but children are the target audience.

edited 25th Sep '16 11:11:23 AM by Beatman1

GabrieltheThird Anvilicious Since: Apr, 2012
Anvilicious
#43715: Sep 25th 2016 at 11:32:06 AM

I know I'd bow out but I can't resist clarifying.

[up][up][up]My point was related to exactly that. Children see the earlier layers of acceptance and not letting problems pile. Jasper being a butch lesbian is like tenth layer stuff that children are unlikely to see, as they aren't even familiar with the trope of a butch lesbian. I mean I didn't see Jasper as such. I can see the parallels when they're pointed to me but that's not the surface text or even the second or third level text.

It's the basic problem of focus. If you focus on what's just a bit ahead of you, everything else gets blurry and distorted. With a children's show you have to focus on the surface layers. That might lead to some really meta stuff being problematic, but as that's not your focus that's sometimes unavoidable (though not of course always).

One example and then I'm out.

Jasper is big and female. She's female because all gems are female. She's supposed to be the threatening climax of the first season so she's big.

Why is Peridot small? Because she's a comedic character, a sidekick who, unlike Jasper, doesn't need to act as a primary threat.

Those are the surface level things that kids are likely to notice, that inform character design. It's the shorthand used to let children easily grasp the situation, so that they don't have to focus so hard on the very first level and thus can more easily see the second layer where lies the show's message about not everyone being irredeemable and might not making right.

Of course when an adult looks at the series as a whole and sees that the two "irredeemable" antagonists (Jasper and Bismuth) are big and the two who get rather speedy redemptions (Lapis and Peridot) are small, there are some unfortunate implications. But that's like the eleventh layer stuff that the kid is never gonna get to and thus should not be the focus of the authors. That's not saying that they should just ignore it, but that it's not what they spend their time on and sometimes just follows from having to keep the earlier layers clearer.

(And I'm aware that cartoons aren't solely for children. I've been watching them for 30 years tongue Anyway yeah, bowing out for real this time.)

edited 25th Sep '16 12:02:56 PM by GabrieltheThird

smokeycut Since: Mar, 2013
#43716: Sep 25th 2016 at 11:38:48 AM

Kids are more perceptive than you think. Rebecca Sugar talked in an interview about how when she was growing up, she didn't see any lgbt characters on tv, and she felt abnormal because of it. So, if a girl watches SU and sees that Jasper is big and buff and mean, and preys on pure innocent Lapis, they'll see that message.

Hell, I saw that message when I was younger. Multiple shows had butch women as violent brutes, and that's the message I got from them. You're telling kids that big buff women are bad, and small dainty women are good.

edited 25th Sep '16 11:39:51 AM by smokeycut

Sereg Since: Jun, 2010
#43717: Sep 25th 2016 at 11:56:44 AM

I don't believe children will see that message in the show. I didn't. I also don't believe that message was put there.

BlueBlaze64 The Watcher on the Tower from Empire City Since: Sep, 2012 Relationship Status: I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me
The Watcher on the Tower
#43718: Sep 25th 2016 at 12:17:25 PM

Well, that was a fun dozen pages to read. I've just been checking this page every other day or so since the hiatus started, and all of a sudden, this. I'm just glad it's still going on so I can say something. I might as well throw my hat into this hat-shredding ring.

I don't think something like this shouldn't be talked about. Talking about it is how we see where people stand on various issues, and show views that some may have been trying to hide. However, it's only when people go into a discussion with the sole goal of convincing the other side that it goes nowhere. If you're convinced you're right, and are only involved in the discussion to give your right opinion to the others, that's the completely wrong mindset. And it's only when discussions about the issues as they relate to the show (or issues with no relation to the show) take up the entire general discussion of the show that it gets out of hand. After a while, this topic will die down, just like the rest of them.

As for the show, I think the whole discussion stems from a problem inherent in all sci-fi that depicts a version of our reality: all of the problems that exist in the present real world are all solved in the world of the show. A similar problem existed when Star Trek: The Original Series first aired. People said it was ignoring current (for the time) issues, when it was just trying to show an ideal goal to reach rather than acting like the problems never existed. It's the same reason inter-human racism doesn't seem to be a thing in SU. They're not ignoring it, they're just portraying the ideal: people of all backgrounds getting along, and no one cares. And it's not like they couldn't if they wanted to. Static Shock did a good job of portraying real-life prejudice in a way that's okay to show to kids, but that's not what SU is trying to do.

What pisses me off, however, is when someone tries to say that a show clearly trying to be progressive really isn't. To go back to my Star Trek example, a couple years ago, someone made a comic saying how, looking back, the show isn't all that progressive by modern-day standards, with Uhura and Sulu basically being token side characters. But do you know when it was considered extremely progressive? Nineteen-sixty-fucking-six, when it first aired. Having a non-villainous Russian character was unheard of back then. The creators at the time didn't even think of having a gay character, and yet it was the most progressive show out there. When a show has the first interracial kiss on television, I don't think it's fair to downplay how progressive it truly was for the time. Sorry, that was a bit of a rant. What I'm saying is that a show clearly trying to be progressive in LGBT terms can't be chided too hard for not being equally progressive on all fronts. Nobody ever got anywhere trying to please everybody. And it's very easy for a viewer to tell the creators of a show to "just write the characters better", in the same way that it's very easy for a tech-illiterate person to tell the IT person to "just fix my computer".

Also, I wanted to offer a different perspective on the whole Discount Lesbians issue. After thinking about it, I think the creators of the show might have made the Gems aliens, not to make it less obvious when they were attracted to one another, but so that they could have an all-female race of warriors and answer the question(s) of "But where are the men?/How do they reproduce?" If they were, say, Amazons (a la Wonder Woman), that would be looming over the whole show. The Alien Gem biology thing answers it in one fell, kid-friendly swoop. It just has the consequence of the relationship angles having less meaning to them, despite the creators really wanting the meaning to stay there. This is what happens when sci-fi uses allegory for a real-life topic: part of what they try to get across gets lost in the translation.

As for Jasper and Bismuth, I'm reminded of this podcast that discussed the movie True Lies while they were playing the game. They mentioned how, since the movie was made in the early 90s, the bad guy was a middle-eastern terrorist. One of them brought up how you couldn't do that nowadays. The other rebutted that you could, so long as you had a middle-eastern good guy, to show "that they're not all like that". He didn't mention it, but I thought of Iron Man as an example of that, and the scientist who was working with Tony Stark while they were in that cave in the first act. I agree that Jasper could be considered a negative stereotype, and that the only way to dissuade that would be to portray a good guy who is equally, for lack of a better word, buff. But the cast (of Gems) is so small that it can't both portray every body type, race, and sexuality, and have at least one on each side of the conflict. All you can hope for is for the only buff bad guy to eventually switch sides, which i'm hoping is done with Jasper, or have a new good guy of the same group get introduced and stay good.

...Holy shit, that was a lot. Let me just end on this: The ideal in terms of diversity and fairness is almost impossible to reach. A work should try to go towards as much diversity as it can, but it shouldn't sacrifice its structure, essential story elements, or character traits for the sake of it.

"The cruelest thing you can do to an artist is tell them their work is flawless when it isn't." -Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw
Ruise Nyanpasu~ from your subconscious Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: It's not my fault I'm not popular!
Nyanpasu~
#43719: Sep 25th 2016 at 12:46:24 PM

I'm definitely not saying they don't exist but I would like some examples of butch female villains outside this show. The few examples of iconic butch gals I can think of in other media are heroic, often extremely so. Xena, Korra, Sakura (Dangan Ronpa best gril 100% unproblematic fave), Chun Li, many female superheroes at least in their original renditions...

edited 25th Sep '16 1:05:53 PM by Ruise

Loves feel-good animation a whole lot.
SilentColossus (Don’t ask)
#43720: Sep 25th 2016 at 1:16:59 PM

I do agree we need more examples of tall, muscular women that aren't violent. Or at least motivated by rage (like Bismuth and Jasper), as most Gems appear to use violence as a first resort.

We do have the Mystery Girl, who is more masculine.

edited 25th Sep '16 1:21:52 PM by SilentColossus

Ultimatum Disasturbator from the Amiga Forest (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Disasturbator
#43721: Sep 25th 2016 at 1:24:03 PM

> most Gems appear to use violence as a first resort.

probably because they assume all non gem life forms are hostile thanks to an incredibly warlike society

have a listen and have a link to my discord server
Ruise Nyanpasu~ from your subconscious Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: It's not my fault I'm not popular!
Nyanpasu~
#43722: Sep 25th 2016 at 1:30:50 PM

Doesn't help that any gem from Homeworld is gonna be a baddie by default. And with Bismuth...well, they weren't just gonna let a new old friend come out of nowhere, join the team, and have everything be hunky dory. That's not how fiction works.

If the show ends and Jasperedemption doesn't happen or Jasper gets killed off, that's when I'll get upset.

Loves feel-good animation a whole lot.
Sereg Since: Jun, 2010
#43723: Sep 25th 2016 at 2:35:46 PM

@Blue Blaze: I think you said it well. I'm not actually criticising the gems for being discount lesbians. Just pointing it out. And the show has now introduced mystery girl who is clearly gay or at least bi, so they haven't avoided showing real lesbians.

randomness4 Ghost '11 from The Land of Inconvenience Since: Sep, 2011
Ghost '11
#43724: Sep 25th 2016 at 3:14:07 PM

A 3rd human lesbian who isn't stuck as a background character...

Rules of the Internet 45. Rule 45 is a lie. Check out my art if you notice.
PushoverMediaCritic I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out. from the Italy of America Since: Jul, 2015 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out.
#43725: Sep 25th 2016 at 3:58:47 PM

Holy shit, this conversation is still happening. I thought we all agreed to stop complaining about how Steven Universe portrays butch lesbians the second S. was introduced?

Additionally, a third of Bismuth's episode was dedicated entirely to showing how she likes to relax and kick back with her friends and that violence is far from her entire personality. Are we going to say that Pearl and Rose are negative stereotypes for being just as gung-ho about revolution as Bismuth is? Context, people. Context. Look at every part.

Jasper isn't violent because she's a big person; she's a big person because she was designed to be violent. Bigger gems are bigger because they're designed for tasks involving physical strength, including combat, not the other way around. Jasper only started fusing recently, and her very first fusion involved her being mentally tortured at the bottom of the ocean for 6 months on end without stop. She came back from the event, traumatized and obsessed with fusion, and she knows that it's not healthy, emotionally or physically.

Saying that Jasper and Bismuth as both big, buff, violent, evil, lesbians is GROSSLY oversimplifying both of their respective characters and character arcs.


Total posts: 63,336
Top