Lodestar's Advocate wrote:Kevin was mostly important in the OS because he was Ben's archenemy and dark counterpart.
Dark countepart, yes. Archenemy? No, that was Vilgax. Kevin himself called Vilgax this in "Back With a Vengeance".
That's a funny opinion, but again, wrong.
Two can play at that game.
Charmcaster fans in particular act so entitled and bleeeeeeh.
Strange, I had no idea liking a character and thus actually wanting them to be written well was "entitled and bleeeeeh."
YOU express dislike for how UAF did things and want OV to be better. I guess that makes YOU "entitled and bleeeeeeh", huh?
The only two human characters who were attractive at all in UAF were Julie and Mike.
Replace Julie with Eunice and I'd agree with you there.
The difference is people are particularly fixated on CC for some reason?
Again, because it wasn't really tied up thanks to "Couples Retreat" coming along and pushing it forward past "Enemy of My Frenemy", and that pisses people off. While she's not as popular as CC so there's not as much fixation, there's also plenty of people who want the issue Elena/The HIVE Queen to get resolved as well, since "The Perfect Girlfriend" also made that an issue and then it was never followed up on by the end of UA.
Conversely, no-one cares about resolving the hanging thread of King Viktor, since he's not popular at all.
But it wouldn't change that her portrayals and appearance in UAF were boring as hell.
Of course not. Fixing her character arc won't mean that the past episodes that exist in it are still there and still bad. But completely dropping it altogether is a really cheap way out, and while you may not care about her arc, alot of people do and not doing anything about it would be a middle finger to these fans.
So I'd rather they pick CC up from where she left off in UAF rather than give her a total reboot.
On that note: I didn't much like how Gwen was handled either.
You and me both. Or Kevin. Or Ben. Or....well, who would YOU say was actually handled RIGHT?
Yeah he was.
No, he wasn't. He was a hobo who was forced to feed off of dogs in an alleyway, got defeated by a literal push of a button and one punch because his manipulations sucked now, he seduced Charmcaster through literally no effort on his own since CC was being a moron, and then HE was a moron who couldn't remember a simple, 4-letter name, and CC promptly kicked his ass for it, leaving him pathetically begging for her to take him back. In AF, he was cool. UA? Not cool AT ALL.
Really, Mike is in need of better writing as much as CC is.
Is that a trick question?
Depends. What would your answer be?
A character need not have an arc to be interesting. Villains can even have story arcs without turning good, you know.
I never said villains DID need an arc of turning good to be interesting. I love plenty of villains who have story arcs or complex characteristics that end up just getting defeated or dying, unredeemed and unrepentant due to their flawed, villainous nature.
I'm just saying that this can't work for Charmcaster, since not only would her being evil again not make any logical sense at this point, but she actually has a MORE valid reason for turning good than Kevin did (who seemed to have several justifactions for turning good made retroactively, all of them sketchy.)
Correction: She doesn't appear as a badass enough. She has a lot of untapped potential. She was cool in AF, but her portrayals in UA were (you guessed it!) terrible.
Ah, NOW we're on the same wavelength!
Yeah, Julie fell into the same trap most superhero girlfriends do: being written as a useless, whiny tool.
But "she has a lot of untapped potential"? Yes, I agree, she does. But so does Charmcaster, that's what I've been saying all this time. If you think of it that way, you ought have empathize more with what I'm saying about her. I want CC to be done right just like you want Julie too (not that I don't want Julie too, as well.)
So the rationale is: This is bad and I want it to be better!!!!
I guess I can respect that?
You'd better, because again, that's what you've been doing too. With UAF, with Julie, with Vilgax....you've SAID you wanted OV to do better with parts of the franchise you've felt have been mishandled. You've essentially SAID "this is bad and I want it to be better!!!!"
So this rationale isn't exclusive to me at all; you feel the same way. Denying that would be hypocrisy on your part.
She could go shitbonkers, for starters. Maybe she can't cope with things. Maybe she tries to rationalize her actions. She knows what her father wants, namely to not kill everyone, but so what? That could be retconned away easily.
That'd be the kind of ill thought-out writing that you and I didn't like in UAF, though. It CAN'T be retconned away easily because it'd make no sense. "Couples Retreat" showed her past her breakdown already: she isn't shitbonkers, she is coping, and she's taking responsibility for her actions by ruling Ledgerdomain and not killing everyone in it, or doing anything evil on Earth. The only "wrongdoing" she did in that episode was because she loved and trusted Michael. Stupid, but not evil.
To change her character so drastically with no logical reason behind it would be "Enemy of My Frenemy" all over again. Is that really what you want?
It's not as if her wanting to bring her father back wasn't a huge load of bullshit as a motive.
Agreed on that point, but sadly it's been established as her life's motive (despite coming out of freaking left field) and there's really no use in changing that now....
That's a dumb comparison because books are not cartoons and cartoons are not books.
But scripts for cartoons still have to be written, and I doubt the writers think about what a character looks like when writing them, they think about who the character is and what they act like. Well, that's what a writer SHOULD do, the UAF writers frequently didn't.
As someone who is both a writer and an artist, I find such claims Stupid.
What have you written and drawn, praytell? Seriously, I'd like to know.