This is a scrap - and should be read as a criticism of the story telling moreso than of the (fictional) characters - but...
One of the results of Season 4 framing Adora as purely a victim of "crazy ex" Glimmer - Presenting it as if Glimmer was reacting to nothing, that Adora wasn't controlling or jealous or secretive - is that it deeply undercuts the idea that Adora treats Catra badly because She Just Doesn't Know Better.
If Adora treats Glimmer in the same (bad) ways she treated Catra, then it tells us she has flawed assumptions about what a "good" relationship looks like; that her behaviour (if not innocent) is at least sincere, and that she is continuing to apply bad models even in a situation where it does not benefit her(or anyone but Shadow Weaver). Having these models fail her would drive the character towards self-examination and personal growth.
But if Glimmer was the core problem in Season 4 - if Adora was nothing but supportive, even when the circumstances of her youth are recreated nearly 1-to-1 - then we're saying that Adora is already perfect, that actually she does know how to have normal, healthy relationships even under trying circumstances.
Which makes her refusal to extend that care to Catra incredibly suspect. Does she think that Catra is uniquely unworthy of respect?
Or does she just know that other people think Catra is unworthy of respect, and aren't going to say shit (especially when they still need She-Ra to save them)?
========================
Look, obviously none of this is the intended read; And fwiw, I think that at least the script of Season 4 actually does show Adora replicating her bad behaviours -
being high-handed, controlling, jealous of Glimmer's relationship with Shadow Weaver, and unhealthily invested in her role as The Hero -
and then has those flaws drive personal growth - reflecting on if she is making things worse, recognizing that her idea of being A Hero is to be a weapon in someone else's hands and explicitly rejecting that -
but that this is undermined by the directorial lens overwhelmingly framing Glimmer as The Villain (and thus Adora as In The Right/The Victim/Smol Bean), and that this conflict drives these really ugly implications.
In absolving Adora, the story inadvertently validates her beliefs - even the ones that it set up as false and harmful. Which, yeah, creates the implication that Adora knows when she's acting badly, but just doesn't care (and that we shouldn't either). That her status as "Good" protects her from criticism, and allows her to cast any opposition as defacto "Bad" and not worthy of acknowledgment or examination.
14 notes
·
View notes
"you're so quiet!" thanks, i have a speech impediment and I'm hoh so communication is already difficult, and i was conditioned to think i have of substance to say because nobody would try to hold a genuine conversation with me, no matter how much i worked on my conversation skills. 99% of people around me don't care, they don't really listen to me or listen at all. they don't respond to me more than half of the time. they just ignore me, or punish me for talking. no fucking shit that i don't talk much when I've been treated like I don't really have any worth as a family member or friend, unless people can get something from me and I'm trying to fit into their box of what's acceptable, so it's convenient for them. yeah.
11 notes
·
View notes
This is such a long post that nobody asked for but I've been seeing Discourse again...
I feel like something that’s missing in most of the discussions I’ve seen on Tumblr about how streaming companies like Netflix have changed TV production for the worse is the profit motive. Or at least, it’s misunderstood. For example, I see a lot of people complaining about how Netflix only considers a show worthwhile if a bunch of people binge it as soon as it comes in, which is true - but I don’t know that everyone understands why, and it's lead to a skewed perception of what's actually going on, and why various studios and platforms make the decisions that they do.
The thing about Netflix is that it’s a public company that's currently unprofitable - so, every single thing it does is oriented toward "growth" (gaining new subscribers). Every show they decide to invest in, they do so because they think it’ll make people who don’t have Netflix want to get Netflix. And if they launch a show, and a whole bunch of new people join the platform, AND their viewer data shows that this show received disproportionate viewership in the same month all those people joined the platform - then it was a good investment. The further out you go from the release, the less correlation there is between the viewership of a show and new subscribers, so the less those viewer numbers matter to them.
Additionally, people talking about the show is more valuable to them than people actually watching it, because people talking about the show gives them free word-of-mouth marketing. Once your friend has bought a Netflix subscription, Netflix doesn't care what they watch, or at what pace. So obviously, if you can make everyone feel like they need to watch the entire show RIGHT NOW because everyone is talking about it and they can't avoid spoilers, that's a much stronger marketing strategy than letting people watch at their own pace.
And that’s why seasons are so short - a longer season costs more money and won’t bring in any extra subscribers, so it's a bad investment. It’s also why Netflix shows tend to be cancelled after only a couple of seasons - if a show hasn’t brought in many new subscribers after the first two seasons, it’s not likely to do so in the future, and so it becomes a poor investment, regardless of how many people already on the platform love it. And even beloved shows like Stranger Things eventually reach a point where everyone who loves it is already on the platform, and even though it's still massively popular it's no longer profitable on the same scale.
All of this is to contrast with network TV, where the revenue comes from advertisers. The more eyeballs are on a show, the more money a network can charge for ad space during that show. So the more beloved a TV show is, the more episodes you want in a season; even if the quality of some of those episodes is poor because the creative team is overworked and underpaid (ie exploited), people will still tune in and you’ll still make money. And that’s also how you end up with shows of 10-15 seasons, even if the show starts to suck around season 8 or 10; as long as enough devoted fans are still watching the show, they can still charge mega ad dollars and make a lot of money. A long-running show with name recognition will make more money, even when it sucks, than an excellent brand-new show with no name recognition. It also means that shows that are self-contained “plot of the week” type shows do a LOT better than stories with season-long arcs, because those shows are more likely to attract casual viewers in addition to regular ones, and people are less likely to abandon the whole show if they miss an episode or two. Plus, if you don't need to worry about the order a season airs in, you can make a lot more money off of rerun adspace outside of the regular season.
And finally, growth looks different for a network. On Netflix, a single person can only provide a single unit of growth, because you're only going to purchase one subscription, so there's very little incentive for Netflix to cater to existing subscribers so long as the platform is 'good enough' for them to avoid cancelling. On the other hand, network growth is calculated based on viewership. So, let's say I watch "The Office" on NBC every week, and nothing else. And then one day, a friend tells me how much they love this other NBC show, "30 Rock", that's halfway through its second season, so I start watching that. That's growth for NBC! They can now charge a little bit more for ad space on 30 Rock than they could before - and it's happened without a whole new person needing to be introduced to their network. So there's a strong incentive to pay attention to what existing viewers want, rather than just focusing on what brings in new viewers. After all, not watching one specific show is a much easier decision than cancelling an entire platform subscription. (The downside of this is that network TV creators are far more beholden to the demands of the audience than a show on a platform like Netflix or HBO, and that can lead to sacrificing some creative integrity).
Overall my point is that the entire structure and shape of TV shows has ALWAYS been motivated by profit. That doesn’t mean the complaints about Netflix are invalid - they are VERY valid and I agree with most of them - but I think it’s important to diagnose the problem correctly: the people with the money to make a tv show are also usually the people who would like to make as much money as possible off your tv show, and will manipulate it accordingly. What’s the solution? I’m not sure, but pretending that these studios are making decisions based on “bad data” or “not understanding what people want” or just pure caprice is simply naive. Its not that they don't know what you want - they just don't care.
19 notes
·
View notes