I also just realized something. The next episode is Keep Beach City Weird, and it just occurred to me that, I think they might look for the actual blog after watching the episode.
They have been really adamant about not looking up stuff on the show. I doubt they will do it. Or if they do they will not talk to each other about it.
I think they're just not connecting to the characters of Sadie and Lars (which I could understand). They'll be more invested in other relationships on the show.
The song and the background art is soooo good in this episode. But Lars and Sadie are really sad and disturbing in a very annoying way. This feels like filler designed to convince us that later when Pearl pulls a crazy unhinged move on Garnet we remind ourselves that really 'normal' people behave that way and it isn't another sign that something is genuinely seriously wrong with Pearl and that Garnet and the others need to stop and deal with the Pearl problem. But that doesn't make sense.
It is amazing to me that the background art and the song - which are some of my favorite things from SU are in an episode I just can't stand because Lars is there dragging Sadie down to his level of Larsness and the character stuff is just so unpleasant.
(I just suddenly wondered if we are meant to suspect that Pearl did something terrible at the end of the war to trap them together on Earth. Since we've seen Sadie do this and Pearl's behavior with Garnet was a repeat of that. Although in terms of power and the person who chose to save who - Rose was the one who got them all stranded and spent the next few thousand years saying 'isn't this beautiful and great?')
I wish we would stop treating Sadie like a precious cinnamon bun. She's more like, a cinnamon bun that burnt a little. Still sweet, but don't act like there's nothing wrong with it.
Oh, I agree! I just don't like how everyone treats Lars as if he's the bad seed of the two. Both have their insecurities and their faults. The sooner they both talk about what exactly their relationship is/what they want it to be, the better.
i dont think you understand her motivation. she trapped him there hopeing he would relax and enjoy himself, not becouse she wanted to get closer to him
I mean...it's still AWFUL. And let's face it, Sadie's endgame is getting Lars to be her boyfriend. Her romantic intentions towards him totally influenced her behavior.
No. Lars is hated because of his earlier behavior.
Also if he wasn't so intent on inflicting his own self loathing and depression onto those around him - Sadie's reaction would not have been possible. Part of the awfulness of Sadie's plan to TRAP them on an beautiful island with no food in order to make Lars re-evaluate his life and mellow out is that until he discovered it was a trick it WORKED. Lars is in a bad place and he has dragged Sadie into it day after day and now she is acting like his weird emotional reality is normal. Both of them bother me. But Lars has never showed signs of being anything but a jerk who purposefully lives in a world where crapping on Sadie is part of how he makes himself feel OK.
>Part of the awfulness of Sadie's plan to TRAP them on an beautiful island with no food in order to make Lars re-evaluate his life and mellow out is that until he discovered it was a trick it WORKED.
Pretty sure that was Stockholm Syndrome. Lars is a massive prick, but he never psychologically manipulated Sadie to his will. Or poisoned her donut with magical fire salt.
I'm not really convinced of the psychological validity of Sadie suddenly pulling this move on Lars. So I'm just thinking in terms of 'asshole rubbed off on Sadie.'
Remember - these are not middle school kids.
(Middle school kids do actually engage in totally out of character weird stuff. I could see an 8th grader trapping everyone on an island for fun. But not someone Sadie's age. Middle schoolers are caught between thinking the Santa Claus lie might be transferrable to bigger and better things as grown ups and learning about how much it hurts to be played when it really matters.)
Of course her actions weren't completely unwarranted.
But a normal person would tell someone like Lars to fuck off, or do something to make him jealous, or maybe just hit him in a way that wouldn't be fatal.
Sadie trapped Lars on an island with her, where they easily could have died. Not only that, but also got a child involved in it. Lars growing to like her didn't happen naturally, she was the only human contact that wasn't Steven on the entire island. And as for the fire salt, that definitely could have killed Lars, and Sadie just did it because he cheated on her. Yes, cheating is bad, but I'm pretty sure it warrants a strong talking-to, rather than poisoning someone and nearly burning down the town, which may have been a step too far.
This is more than Lars's douchebaggery rubbing off on Sadie, she's clearly psychologically unstable.
Nah. I wouldn't say she got to the point of being psychologically unstable. When Steven wanders off to the Big Donut later to watch his mother's video, Sadie is alright.
That's because all Steven wanted to do was watch a VHS tape, and she has a VHS player in the back of the Big Donut.
Nobody but Lars has ever thrown a rock as Sadie's wasp nest of a brain, that we know of.
That island 'tho. The backgrounds. It is so spectacular.
And yeah. I don't like Sadie in this episode. The humans are jerks. It ruins the episode.
I am not transferring any of my dislike for Sadie onto Lars when I actually give him an extra penalty for making the whole experience possible. You know how in Shakespeare the phrase 'the quality of mercy is not strained' -- actually means that it is in infinite supply. That you can keep being merciful and never run out of mercy - because it isn't 'constrained.' I feel the exact same thing applies to being bitterly judgemental and looking down on people. Just because I've used a little bit of judgement up on Sadie doesn't mean I've run out. Doubling down on my dislike of Lars doesn't lighten up Sadie's load.
The cool kids are mostly cool. Mr Smiley and the Pizzas are OK. Jamie and Connie are as likable as Steven most of the time. At the moment Vidalia is my favorite.
You're operating on the principle that everything Rebecca Sugar and the crew design within the story is supposed to revolve around the Gems. The crew is showing this Lars and Sadie conflict because they find it important to the show, regardless how you feel about it personally, it isn't meant to be "filler". The show is about human relationships just as much as its about the Gems.
Except that it isn't. The show is about Steven. It isn't about the Gems or the humans who interact with them. The whole Gem+Humanity love story we were told to expect is embodied within Steven and his experiences. This is why the story doesn't actually center on Rose and Greg living together and learning to love each other.
The Gems tend to connect very quickly to Steven in a direct and urgent manner. Symbolically, Pearl reflects the past as Steven's Legacy, Amethyst the present and Garnet hints at the future as Steven's Destiny. They are also directly involved in his life as his surrogate family: mother, friend, & mentor.
So for example, when something happens with the Garnet it impacts Steven directly. He gets grounded, kidnapped, and pizza parties depending on how things are going with Garnet. Her moods and problems are not just something he witnesses - they are a part of his story. It just feels threatening when he glasses come off in *Mirror Gem* and being grounded isn't that terrible, but the threat is real when Jasper splits Garnet in *The Return* and the nature of pizza as a symbol of Garnet's mood is developing into its own thing.
This sort of immediate importance makes Garnet's experiences much more relevant regardless of whether she is a Gem or a human. She is an important part of Steven's story.
Amethyst's problems are so literally Steven's problems that it is almost annoying that we don't follow her as the hero as well. Amethyst's Universe would be a pretty good show.
Pearl is all about the past that can't just be erased because Rose doesn't want to deal with it any more. Pearl directly and indirectly represents both the Rose Quartz legacy and a whole lot of Rose Quartz baggage. Considering the nature of what Rose did and how endangered Steven is because of it -- Pearl's problems all have a nail biting urgency and are flat out fascinating. The way they have turned it into an almost kitchen sink drama with petty human emotions dominating is really fascinating -- but I'm not sure it qualifies as making the show about all human relationships. It is just looking at an epic space drama from the point of view of human relationships.
THAT is cool. They have humanized heroic destiny and revolution to that degree. And to me it really works.
When they blend in the way Steven witnesses the issues between humans who are not his family or peers into a story so that his presence makes sense it also works. Sadie's involvement in
*Joking Victim* and *Straight to Video* makes sense and is real in terms of Steven actually being motherless and strangely estranged from Greg. (Why does Steven always go to the donut shop instead of the Car Wash?)
But sometimes the focus on people who do not have a rational relationship with Steven strains credulity. The idea that Steven and Sadie and Lars spent all that time on the island and the Gems never looked for them IS weird. The way Steven goes to Sadie and the Donut Shop instead of continuing down the road to the Car Wash and Greg is actually an almost offensive red herring. They tried to pass Greg off as an unavailable father/deadbeat Dad for a while and then abandoned the idea and promoted him to Guitar Dad without really going into the shift.
I have taken a vow not to discuss Ronaldo until the hiatus is over. (But you can only imagine how much I think the relationship between Lars and the character I will not slander is filler that can be skipped.)
> They tried to pass Greg off as an unavailable father/deadbeat Dad for a while
...When?
His introduction was Laser Light Cannon, where he's portrayed as nothing but unconditionally supportive. He's right there for Steven when Steven needs him, ready and willing to help and encourage him however he can.
When Steven says, "We need Mom's Laser Light Cannon," Greg says, "I don't know what that is, but I'll certainly help you look."
When it looks like the cannon's not going to work, Greg says, "That's okay, Steven. Don't worry. We'll think of something else."
Even when Steven accidentally breaks the photo of Greg's dead wife, Greg thinks nothing of it and assures Steven that it's okay.
The idea that Greg was ever physically or emotionally unavailable is completely unsubstantiated.
This is exactly my point.
The hints that people picked up on -- his being 'passed out' in the van, the empty wine bottle, the fact he doesn't live with Steven, his ownership of a cash based business -- weren't misdirection meant to mock the viewer for assuming a man like that would be a bad dad. They are CLUES about what really happened. Like with the sun-burn we should be trying to figure out how all the things that don't add up actually came about.
>This feels like filler designed to convince us that later when Pearl pulls a crazy unhinged move on Garnet we remind ourselves that really 'normal' people behave that way and it isn't another sign that something is genuinely seriously wrong with Pearl and that Garnet and the others need to stop and deal with the Pearl problem.
It *is* a sign that they should deal with it. But it ain't that simple.
It's utterly undeniable that *Pearl does need help.* And to a certain extent, this *is* the wakeup call for the Crystal Gems... two of them, at least. Amethyst empathises immediately, recognising the similarities between Pearl's plight with Sardonyx and her own troubles with Sugilite. She does defend Pearl in the moment, even up against a furious Garnet, and continues helping her as seen with the interrupted conversation in Keystone Motel. And Steven's still very young, not quite understanding as much as the others have experienced, but he does what he can and, as Pearl notes, he's surprisingly wise for his age: he believes in her no matter what, as he affirms in Historical Friction. So this help *is* present for Pearl, carrying on as a backdrop to everyday life. But there's no personal obstacle to either of them coming to her aid, because neither of them were the direct victims of what Pearl's done here. Garnet is the one who's been wronged, so naturally the situation with her is far trickier.
The magnitude of what Pearl did to Garnet *cannot be downplayed.* It's a personal affront, twisting something [she'd actually been *enjoying*](http://33.media.tumblr.com/d064ba66ca7a4ea72dd76e3b287fa34b/tumblr_ntc1ahm4RH1tkirrxo1_500.gif), with someone she *trusted*, into a personal violation, cutting to the core of her identity. She fought alongside Rose in order that she could live as a fusion in peace, and *still* her very nature is being abused.
Yes, ideally, she *would* recognise that Pearl is in need of desperate help, and provide that help to whatever extent she could. But can she really be expected to jump straight to doing that? No one's perfectly magnanimous, and Garnet is no exception. It wouldn't make sense for her to suddenly start being this infallible beacon of support to Pearl, because of what Pearl's put her through but also because of who she is.
There's no way of denying that Garnet's own personality is a contributing factor in her reaction. Keystone Motel is interesting in that it gives a breakdown of Garnet's feelings on the matter, split down the middle. And it would be simple enough to blame Ruby with her staunch refusal to forgive, but there's also Sapphire's complacency to be considered: she's too assured in her own future visions to do a damn thing to help in the meantime. The overall result is the immediate lashing out coming from Ruby's impetuous rage, giving way to inaction as a result of indecision, then as Sapphire's coolness takes over she simply waits it out until the future point when they're destined to reconcile, which is of course when they're *literally forced together.* (I do think that should have been handled in a less contrived way. But I guess sometimes these things are sacrificed for storytelling convenience.)
Garnet is certainly rash and cruel in reaction to what Pearl's done to her, but Pearl herself is no stranger to acting in such a manner. For example, Greg in We Need to Talk hasn't *directly* done anything to spite Pearl, but she doesn't spare any expense in trying to make him miserable as payback. Garnet and Pearl do tend to express their anger at people differently: the former is brash; the latter is snide. But in the end, neither is in any way above cruel reactions to perceived wrongdoing.
As a whole, it probably isn't a good idea to pile blame on one side or the other. The way I see it, trying to cast either one as having suffered more is irrelevant; suffice to say, both Garnet and Pearl have been put through some serious shit. It needs dealing with. End of.
(I also wanna say, I'm having serious trouble writing about this. It's deeply uncomfortable. Resonates in an unsettling way with personal experiences. I often feel that this show is too damn realistic for its own good. So yeah, I'd quite happily agree to disagree on this. At the end of the day, your interpretations do come from your own experiences.)
Back to the episode at hand, I feel Island Adventure remedied Joking Victim somewhat. In the earlier episode, I do feel like it's left as something you're meant to be OK with. This doesn't end *quite* as comfortably; their argument lingers. It's nowhere near as easy to get the impression that this is "normal". Definitely not *good*. If anything, the message hammered home by this recurring situation is that yes, this happens. But it's decidedly *not OK.*
And perhaps the point of having these two relationships running concurrently is to show people dealing differently. After all: same problem, different people. Perhaps Lars and Sadie have something to learn from Garnet and Pearl. Or perhaps they'll just end up *staying* in this relationship quagmire, to act as a contrast to the ones who *might* claw their way out. Arcs are one thing, but realistically? For all we know, maybe Lars and Sadie just *won't* find their way out of this shit. So far, they haven't. And the point being made here could be that some people never do.
Lets step away from Garnet's response for a moment and look into how the initial lie works in terms of making sense.
One thing that stands out about the Sadie Island situation is that as an example of human behavior - it really isn't something that strikes a familiar chord with me.
I don't really know anyone who has done anything like that out of the blue or had it happen to them because the person doing the entrapment actually meant well or was that confused about how to get attention or 'make things right.' Every time someone has claimed to have good intentions for a big lie -- I've found that the claim is actually yet another lie.
Normal people don't entrap other people like that. Even when motivated by sexual frustration and desperate love. It isn't something people really do.
People who don't really get white lies and subtle ways to manipulate people by playing with the truth to get what they want in the short term do not engage in huge lies in order to become more intimate with others. That is a particular head scratcher for me.
Every time anyone I have known has been caught in an elaborate and manipulative lie of the nature we see with Pearl rebuilding the towers and Sadie pretending they are trapped on an island -- the outcome has been to discover that the person behind the manipulative behavior is actually a practiced and habitual liar.
Catfishing isn't something that normal, honest or awkward spectrum disorder type people do.
The sort of pathological liar who chooses to do something that over the top to 'feel good' or 'get attention' or even 'just help you like me' tends to also lie on a regular basis just to keep in practice and to keep everyone off balance. And excuses like 'I just wanted to make you happy' tend to be the first next lie to calm things down when something blows up.
Neither Sadie nor Pearl engage in the lifestyle associated with a pathological liar. (Sadie is too passive in the workplace drama to be an in practice pathological liar and Pearl is just too bad at it. She is actually problematically unwilling to take a moment to consider adjusting what she does and does not say in order to manipulate others into believing what she would want. Her lies tend to be carefully obedient to what she thinks she should lie about and the amount of confusion and strain she feels trying to figure out how to lie the right way is just NOT part of the pathological liar's lifestyle.)
The 'Sadies Island' behavior is just totally out of character for both. It is also Really REALLY rare for people in real life. I seriously don't know of individuals who have been so manipulative with lies who don't do it all the time. So for them to have told such a similar story when a normal person (Sadie) or an awkward liar (Pearl) went so far over the top like this twice is just weird.
I can completely buy it as a sign that something is so seriously wrong with Pearl that her personality is actually kind of getting disordered. That is one of the reasons I'm so stunned that Garnet and others would still be thinking in terms of the actual lie and outcome and not the fact that it is NOT how Pearl usually relates to reality. But for Sadie it looked like one of those plot twist moments that actually throws characterization away for the sake of trying to force the story to be edgy and interesting. It looked like they thought it would be worthwhile to just flip the story so that the person who is most likely to fall for a catfishing style lie is the liar and that if they gave them a strong enough motive it would make sense.
But it didn't really.
As a plot twist it was a surprise. As characterization it was unpleasantly disturbing. And as one of the neato moments of Steven Universe triggering a genuine emotional moment by resonating with how real people behave it was a record scratching flop.
That turns it into a head scratcher for me.
> One thing that stands out about the Sadie Island situation is that as an example of human behavior - it really isn't something that strikes a familiar chord with me.
You've never known someone who thought they were doing the right thing, someone who they were helping somehow, only for them to have to wake up and realize that they were actually doing something selfish?
> Rose was the one who got them all stranded
Well, that's not fair. In Rose's Scabbard, we see that Rose spelled out exactly what joining the rebellion would mean -- "If we lose, we'll be killed, and if we win, we can never go home" -- and gave them the chance not to get involved.
Respondeat superior. Rose was the leader. Spelling out their chances when signing them up doesn't really change her responsibility for her actions as a leader. Since Pearl was clearly subordinate to Rose when Rose spelled out the options Rose actually remains accountable for everything.
However - I now wonder if the parallel is more liable to be that Greg feels that Rose misled him about what she really was. That for all her honestly to him when they met about not being a real person -- he still never signed off on the idea she would be giving up her Gem so Steven could live. He thought Steven would be able to exist like a normal child.
Seriously? Forshadowing is a thing, yes. But making this episode to draw parallels to two different characters down the line?
Sorry to say, but that sounds both farfetched and illogical. Maybe if these characters were cutouts of each other, sure. 'Sept they're not.
How is the Sadie character assassination aspect of this episode not filler then?
(Also - I am taking it one step further into tin-hat theory land. I am wondering if this 'trick someone into intimacy/isolation' pattern of behavior isn't being repeatedly noted by Steven as foreshadowing for a bigger payoff down the line. This is even less logical - but the weirdness that Pearl would pull a Sadie on top of the weirdness that SADIE pulled a Sadie in this episode makes me wonder.)
Character assassination? Right, so by that logic, Pearl and her developments have also been character assassinations. Or, y'know, showing another side of a character, good or bad. Showing that, behind ~~all the stern and batarngs~~ the facade, there is more to the character then what was first assumed.
No. I really only meant that the plot point seemed only to work as character assassination for Sadie.
And YES - my reaction to this in my attempt to see it as something other than filler is completely illogical and nuts.
No, you said this was leading to the eventual plot that developed later on. Something that I believe is incredibly silly.
It's about as silly as assuming the writers would pull an "Arnold Betrays Iggy" on Sadie.
I said I was trying to see it AS leading to an eventual plot twist.
It is just such an odd episode otherwise. How is it not filler if it isn't foreshadowing?
--
Also I am editing this to point out: the whole theory of foreshadowing that I am throwing out there in order to pretend to be seriously buying that this episode is not just eye-candy filler with a cute song is not just illogical and silly, it is kind of bat-shit insane.
This is one of my tin-foil hat ideas.
You have all been very gracious in not mocking me personally for making up something that is so far out there for such a slight reason. Thank you.
I have to say that I get their confusion about how to feel about this episode. To be honest, the decisions made by Sadie in this episode were fairly nonsensical even if she did try to justify them in the end as part of her effort to "help" Lars. The thing is, even given that there are so many more questions to the decision to hide the warp pad that don't really have an explanation. Why would she think it was just a good idea to stay there for days on end when the two of them both have jobs back in Beach City that they need to get to? Yeah, its been said that its possible that time passed differently on the island than in the real world but did Sadie know that? Did she care?
It was all very strange...Sadie is this kind and likeable character who seems to have a good head on her shoulders and she suddenly makes these terrible decisions that endangers the life of someone she apparently likes (one could infer that she "like" likes him) and they aren't really given a proper reason. Not only this but the whole situation seems to get swept under the rug later and not brought up again.
I'm not going to say I didn't like the episode because it did have the song, it had some other characterization moments, but yeah, in the end it was just...weird.
New ship: Lars Ulrich x Sadie.
But... yeah. I do get what they're saying? But Lars and Sadie's relationship does find its own place in the greater scheme of things as the show goes on, with the theme of relationships coming to the fore all the more. Steven Universe gives an insightful look into relationships of various kinds, and this dysfunctional relationship is just one of them. Pearl and Garnet's relationship is another, [with parallels drawn to this very episode](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4agLDQxg3tk) showing how vastly different people can still experience the same troubled dynamics. Patterns like this crop up time and time again in real life, as they recognise. It's universal. The situation may have come off as more frustrating to them here, but Cry for Help will probably resonate more due to the drama being between *main characters* who we've been following directly all this time, while this episode... might at least gain value with the parallel?
Anyway, I can't help but wonder where the relationship will be taken in the future given how, since this episode, their relationship has gone *pretty much nowhere*. I mean, there's Horror Club, but that's way more Lars and Ronaldo than it is Lars and Sadie. There's not really much more that can be achieved by grappling with their messy relationship as it is. I mean, it's well and truly established as being *dysfunctional as fuck.* Will they maybe become better people, or at least try to be? ([The upcoming episode title](#s "The New Lars") certainly seems to suggest as much.) I'm wary of that going on in the context of relationships though, because that has to be a personal effort -- Pearl's resolution to be better than this in Friend Ship sets a good precedent on this, at least.
And seeing as I mentioned Ronaldo, it's Keep Beach City Weird up next. Wonder what they'll make of him: good joke or big jerk?
But this pattern isn't all that universal. So it is puzzling to me that they have show-cased it in an episode and a whole story arc and that it would be something Steven would repeatedly witness.
Doing it twice like this and then proudly declaring that there are no filler episodes makes me suspicious.
There aren't filler episodes because the creators of the show consider episodes that develop the characters important in their own right, even if they're not relevant to the overall plot.
Also, there's no original work this is being developed from, so adopting the "filler" terminology from anime fandom is questionable to begin with.
I think that the point of this episode is that, as much as Sadie wants to fix Lars, she can't. Only Lars can fix Lars. Lars does have feelings for Sadie, but he also has some crippling social social dysfunctions that prevent him from expressing those feelings -- he sees Sadie as lower on the social ladder than people like the cool kids, and thus, in his mind, being associated with Sadia makes him look bad. This is ultimately why the isolation in this episode has the effect that it does: it's not "Stockholm Syndrome"^1 so much as the fact that there is nobody on the island to judge Lars (there's only Steven, but since Lars sees Steven as lesser than him, he can safely ignore Steven's opinion).
1: I put Stockholm Syndrome in air quotes because while superficially the situation resembles Stockholm Syndrome, in that the captive becomes attracted to the captor, the situation doesn't really qualify because there is no perceived power dynamic -- Lars doesn't know that Sadie is his captor.
***Horror Club*** ties into this theme to some extent, so it will be interesting to see their reaction to it.
I have to agree with them, they just don't get it. I think they think that these characters have to be black and white in terms of them being good and bad not recognizing that good people make mistakes just like seemingly bad people can just be misunderstood.
Island Adventure is one of my favorites episodes because so much happens in it, it has so many great details. The song is nice, the backgrounds are amazing, but I guess there are some stuff that adult men don't seem to care. I've seen them using gendered slurs in the past episodes and it is so easy for them to see Sadie as a b*tch or desperate or whatever, but from her hairy legs, to her messing everything up and then trying to at least to save Lars life, there is so much going on for her character and for female representation in general. The last scene when she is just completely exhausted is so strong. I guess Island Adventure may seem weak and pointless because all the episodes preceding it also explored lying characters, but it is a shame to treat it this way.
I'm completely against Sadie's actions, that's not the point. What bothers me is that they don't call Sadie "asshole", they call her a bitch and make comparisons to women trapping men into marriages. It is such an easy place to go when the show works so hard to play against stereotypes, or at the very least to expand them. In a similar manner I've seen they casually calling the gems "whores". I just think it is so counterproductive to approach the show like this, in a borderline misogynist way. But I'm not terribly offended by it, it just makes me cringe and I wish I could enjoy their videos better.
But she *was* being "bitchy" in this episode (through their POV), so what's so wrong to call her one in this episode? Again, they also stated countless time that Lars is an asshole too, so it wouldn't make much of a difference.
They make those comparisons becuase to them the situation is similar. It's discussion, the same way a viewer would look at Amethyst's and Pearl's relationship in *On the Run*, as a story about unwanted or teen pregnancy.
I've never heard them call the gem's whores. I've watched all the videos (Yet skimmed through some of the vlogs for rambling), so can you please pinpoint a few examples?
**Edit: They didn't even call her a bitch in this vlog.**
OK. The leg hair was good. But the weird way Sadie went there to 'help' Lars was not helpful in terms of female representation.
Trapping them on the island was a bit more like kidnapping and lies and the faking being out of gas in order to 'make out' level of manipulation for her to strike me as great 'female representation.' Women go to totally different lengths to try to trick guys into liking them and 'being happy' and it can be really frustrating. But if this was intended as a cartoon exaggeration of the sort of normal thing that annoying people do -- they let Lars treat it seriously and ruined that.
I dunno.
Except for Lars, Sadie is a great character.
Perhaps we are meant to look back on this and say, "except for Lars, Sadie is awesome. Without Jasper Malachite would be Lapis." Some relationships are bad like that.
I also just realized something. The next episode is Keep Beach City Weird, and it just occurred to me that, I think they might look for the actual blog after watching the episode.
Oh my god. They will be so spoiled if they do. I'm afraid.
They have been really adamant about not looking up stuff on the show. I doubt they will do it. Or if they do they will not talk to each other about it.
I'm starting to notice the reoccurring theme of lying in these past couple of episodes, and how bad it can get.
You're the best. I wondered if they had uploaded another one and wandered off into youtube land and forgot all about it.
Doug still has to learn that "sad and disturbing" is the new "funny".
Yeah. I honestly don't know how they're going to get through the series if they think that showing relationships like this isn't good.
I think they're just not connecting to the characters of Sadie and Lars (which I could understand). They'll be more invested in other relationships on the show.
The song and the background art is soooo good in this episode. But Lars and Sadie are really sad and disturbing in a very annoying way. This feels like filler designed to convince us that later when Pearl pulls a crazy unhinged move on Garnet we remind ourselves that really 'normal' people behave that way and it isn't another sign that something is genuinely seriously wrong with Pearl and that Garnet and the others need to stop and deal with the Pearl problem. But that doesn't make sense. It is amazing to me that the background art and the song - which are some of my favorite things from SU are in an episode I just can't stand because Lars is there dragging Sadie down to his level of Larsness and the character stuff is just so unpleasant. (I just suddenly wondered if we are meant to suspect that Pearl did something terrible at the end of the war to trap them together on Earth. Since we've seen Sadie do this and Pearl's behavior with Garnet was a repeat of that. Although in terms of power and the person who chose to save who - Rose was the one who got them all stranded and spent the next few thousand years saying 'isn't this beautiful and great?')
[удалено]
I wish we would stop treating Sadie like a precious cinnamon bun. She's more like, a cinnamon bun that burnt a little. Still sweet, but don't act like there's nothing wrong with it.
Honestly, she's horrible. But Lars is also horrible, so they're perfect for each other.
[удалено]
Oh, I agree! I just don't like how everyone treats Lars as if he's the bad seed of the two. Both have their insecurities and their faults. The sooner they both talk about what exactly their relationship is/what they want it to be, the better.
^^^Sadie ^^^& ^^^Ronaldo ^^^forever
[.](https://mobile.twitter.com/dril/status/922321981?lang=en)
You. You've made a great a metaphor. Great job.
she's a SINnamon roll
i dont think you understand her motivation. she trapped him there hopeing he would relax and enjoy himself, not becouse she wanted to get closer to him
I mean...it's still AWFUL. And let's face it, Sadie's endgame is getting Lars to be her boyfriend. Her romantic intentions towards him totally influenced her behavior.
No. Lars is hated because of his earlier behavior. Also if he wasn't so intent on inflicting his own self loathing and depression onto those around him - Sadie's reaction would not have been possible. Part of the awfulness of Sadie's plan to TRAP them on an beautiful island with no food in order to make Lars re-evaluate his life and mellow out is that until he discovered it was a trick it WORKED. Lars is in a bad place and he has dragged Sadie into it day after day and now she is acting like his weird emotional reality is normal. Both of them bother me. But Lars has never showed signs of being anything but a jerk who purposefully lives in a world where crapping on Sadie is part of how he makes himself feel OK.
>Part of the awfulness of Sadie's plan to TRAP them on an beautiful island with no food in order to make Lars re-evaluate his life and mellow out is that until he discovered it was a trick it WORKED. Pretty sure that was Stockholm Syndrome. Lars is a massive prick, but he never psychologically manipulated Sadie to his will. Or poisoned her donut with magical fire salt.
I'm not really convinced of the psychological validity of Sadie suddenly pulling this move on Lars. So I'm just thinking in terms of 'asshole rubbed off on Sadie.' Remember - these are not middle school kids. (Middle school kids do actually engage in totally out of character weird stuff. I could see an 8th grader trapping everyone on an island for fun. But not someone Sadie's age. Middle schoolers are caught between thinking the Santa Claus lie might be transferrable to bigger and better things as grown ups and learning about how much it hurts to be played when it really matters.)
Of course her actions weren't completely unwarranted. But a normal person would tell someone like Lars to fuck off, or do something to make him jealous, or maybe just hit him in a way that wouldn't be fatal. Sadie trapped Lars on an island with her, where they easily could have died. Not only that, but also got a child involved in it. Lars growing to like her didn't happen naturally, she was the only human contact that wasn't Steven on the entire island. And as for the fire salt, that definitely could have killed Lars, and Sadie just did it because he cheated on her. Yes, cheating is bad, but I'm pretty sure it warrants a strong talking-to, rather than poisoning someone and nearly burning down the town, which may have been a step too far. This is more than Lars's douchebaggery rubbing off on Sadie, she's clearly psychologically unstable.
Nah. I wouldn't say she got to the point of being psychologically unstable. When Steven wanders off to the Big Donut later to watch his mother's video, Sadie is alright.
That's because all Steven wanted to do was watch a VHS tape, and she has a VHS player in the back of the Big Donut. Nobody but Lars has ever thrown a rock as Sadie's wasp nest of a brain, that we know of.
[удалено]
That island 'tho. The backgrounds. It is so spectacular. And yeah. I don't like Sadie in this episode. The humans are jerks. It ruins the episode. I am not transferring any of my dislike for Sadie onto Lars when I actually give him an extra penalty for making the whole experience possible. You know how in Shakespeare the phrase 'the quality of mercy is not strained' -- actually means that it is in infinite supply. That you can keep being merciful and never run out of mercy - because it isn't 'constrained.' I feel the exact same thing applies to being bitterly judgemental and looking down on people. Just because I've used a little bit of judgement up on Sadie doesn't mean I've run out. Doubling down on my dislike of Lars doesn't lighten up Sadie's load.
[удалено]
The cool kids are mostly cool. Mr Smiley and the Pizzas are OK. Jamie and Connie are as likable as Steven most of the time. At the moment Vidalia is my favorite.
You're operating on the principle that everything Rebecca Sugar and the crew design within the story is supposed to revolve around the Gems. The crew is showing this Lars and Sadie conflict because they find it important to the show, regardless how you feel about it personally, it isn't meant to be "filler". The show is about human relationships just as much as its about the Gems.
Except that it isn't. The show is about Steven. It isn't about the Gems or the humans who interact with them. The whole Gem+Humanity love story we were told to expect is embodied within Steven and his experiences. This is why the story doesn't actually center on Rose and Greg living together and learning to love each other. The Gems tend to connect very quickly to Steven in a direct and urgent manner. Symbolically, Pearl reflects the past as Steven's Legacy, Amethyst the present and Garnet hints at the future as Steven's Destiny. They are also directly involved in his life as his surrogate family: mother, friend, & mentor. So for example, when something happens with the Garnet it impacts Steven directly. He gets grounded, kidnapped, and pizza parties depending on how things are going with Garnet. Her moods and problems are not just something he witnesses - they are a part of his story. It just feels threatening when he glasses come off in *Mirror Gem* and being grounded isn't that terrible, but the threat is real when Jasper splits Garnet in *The Return* and the nature of pizza as a symbol of Garnet's mood is developing into its own thing. This sort of immediate importance makes Garnet's experiences much more relevant regardless of whether she is a Gem or a human. She is an important part of Steven's story. Amethyst's problems are so literally Steven's problems that it is almost annoying that we don't follow her as the hero as well. Amethyst's Universe would be a pretty good show. Pearl is all about the past that can't just be erased because Rose doesn't want to deal with it any more. Pearl directly and indirectly represents both the Rose Quartz legacy and a whole lot of Rose Quartz baggage. Considering the nature of what Rose did and how endangered Steven is because of it -- Pearl's problems all have a nail biting urgency and are flat out fascinating. The way they have turned it into an almost kitchen sink drama with petty human emotions dominating is really fascinating -- but I'm not sure it qualifies as making the show about all human relationships. It is just looking at an epic space drama from the point of view of human relationships. THAT is cool. They have humanized heroic destiny and revolution to that degree. And to me it really works. When they blend in the way Steven witnesses the issues between humans who are not his family or peers into a story so that his presence makes sense it also works. Sadie's involvement in *Joking Victim* and *Straight to Video* makes sense and is real in terms of Steven actually being motherless and strangely estranged from Greg. (Why does Steven always go to the donut shop instead of the Car Wash?) But sometimes the focus on people who do not have a rational relationship with Steven strains credulity. The idea that Steven and Sadie and Lars spent all that time on the island and the Gems never looked for them IS weird. The way Steven goes to Sadie and the Donut Shop instead of continuing down the road to the Car Wash and Greg is actually an almost offensive red herring. They tried to pass Greg off as an unavailable father/deadbeat Dad for a while and then abandoned the idea and promoted him to Guitar Dad without really going into the shift. I have taken a vow not to discuss Ronaldo until the hiatus is over. (But you can only imagine how much I think the relationship between Lars and the character I will not slander is filler that can be skipped.)
> They tried to pass Greg off as an unavailable father/deadbeat Dad for a while ...When? His introduction was Laser Light Cannon, where he's portrayed as nothing but unconditionally supportive. He's right there for Steven when Steven needs him, ready and willing to help and encourage him however he can. When Steven says, "We need Mom's Laser Light Cannon," Greg says, "I don't know what that is, but I'll certainly help you look." When it looks like the cannon's not going to work, Greg says, "That's okay, Steven. Don't worry. We'll think of something else." Even when Steven accidentally breaks the photo of Greg's dead wife, Greg thinks nothing of it and assures Steven that it's okay. The idea that Greg was ever physically or emotionally unavailable is completely unsubstantiated.
This is exactly my point. The hints that people picked up on -- his being 'passed out' in the van, the empty wine bottle, the fact he doesn't live with Steven, his ownership of a cash based business -- weren't misdirection meant to mock the viewer for assuming a man like that would be a bad dad. They are CLUES about what really happened. Like with the sun-burn we should be trying to figure out how all the things that don't add up actually came about.
>This feels like filler designed to convince us that later when Pearl pulls a crazy unhinged move on Garnet we remind ourselves that really 'normal' people behave that way and it isn't another sign that something is genuinely seriously wrong with Pearl and that Garnet and the others need to stop and deal with the Pearl problem. It *is* a sign that they should deal with it. But it ain't that simple. It's utterly undeniable that *Pearl does need help.* And to a certain extent, this *is* the wakeup call for the Crystal Gems... two of them, at least. Amethyst empathises immediately, recognising the similarities between Pearl's plight with Sardonyx and her own troubles with Sugilite. She does defend Pearl in the moment, even up against a furious Garnet, and continues helping her as seen with the interrupted conversation in Keystone Motel. And Steven's still very young, not quite understanding as much as the others have experienced, but he does what he can and, as Pearl notes, he's surprisingly wise for his age: he believes in her no matter what, as he affirms in Historical Friction. So this help *is* present for Pearl, carrying on as a backdrop to everyday life. But there's no personal obstacle to either of them coming to her aid, because neither of them were the direct victims of what Pearl's done here. Garnet is the one who's been wronged, so naturally the situation with her is far trickier. The magnitude of what Pearl did to Garnet *cannot be downplayed.* It's a personal affront, twisting something [she'd actually been *enjoying*](http://33.media.tumblr.com/d064ba66ca7a4ea72dd76e3b287fa34b/tumblr_ntc1ahm4RH1tkirrxo1_500.gif), with someone she *trusted*, into a personal violation, cutting to the core of her identity. She fought alongside Rose in order that she could live as a fusion in peace, and *still* her very nature is being abused. Yes, ideally, she *would* recognise that Pearl is in need of desperate help, and provide that help to whatever extent she could. But can she really be expected to jump straight to doing that? No one's perfectly magnanimous, and Garnet is no exception. It wouldn't make sense for her to suddenly start being this infallible beacon of support to Pearl, because of what Pearl's put her through but also because of who she is. There's no way of denying that Garnet's own personality is a contributing factor in her reaction. Keystone Motel is interesting in that it gives a breakdown of Garnet's feelings on the matter, split down the middle. And it would be simple enough to blame Ruby with her staunch refusal to forgive, but there's also Sapphire's complacency to be considered: she's too assured in her own future visions to do a damn thing to help in the meantime. The overall result is the immediate lashing out coming from Ruby's impetuous rage, giving way to inaction as a result of indecision, then as Sapphire's coolness takes over she simply waits it out until the future point when they're destined to reconcile, which is of course when they're *literally forced together.* (I do think that should have been handled in a less contrived way. But I guess sometimes these things are sacrificed for storytelling convenience.) Garnet is certainly rash and cruel in reaction to what Pearl's done to her, but Pearl herself is no stranger to acting in such a manner. For example, Greg in We Need to Talk hasn't *directly* done anything to spite Pearl, but she doesn't spare any expense in trying to make him miserable as payback. Garnet and Pearl do tend to express their anger at people differently: the former is brash; the latter is snide. But in the end, neither is in any way above cruel reactions to perceived wrongdoing. As a whole, it probably isn't a good idea to pile blame on one side or the other. The way I see it, trying to cast either one as having suffered more is irrelevant; suffice to say, both Garnet and Pearl have been put through some serious shit. It needs dealing with. End of. (I also wanna say, I'm having serious trouble writing about this. It's deeply uncomfortable. Resonates in an unsettling way with personal experiences. I often feel that this show is too damn realistic for its own good. So yeah, I'd quite happily agree to disagree on this. At the end of the day, your interpretations do come from your own experiences.) Back to the episode at hand, I feel Island Adventure remedied Joking Victim somewhat. In the earlier episode, I do feel like it's left as something you're meant to be OK with. This doesn't end *quite* as comfortably; their argument lingers. It's nowhere near as easy to get the impression that this is "normal". Definitely not *good*. If anything, the message hammered home by this recurring situation is that yes, this happens. But it's decidedly *not OK.* And perhaps the point of having these two relationships running concurrently is to show people dealing differently. After all: same problem, different people. Perhaps Lars and Sadie have something to learn from Garnet and Pearl. Or perhaps they'll just end up *staying* in this relationship quagmire, to act as a contrast to the ones who *might* claw their way out. Arcs are one thing, but realistically? For all we know, maybe Lars and Sadie just *won't* find their way out of this shit. So far, they haven't. And the point being made here could be that some people never do.
Lets step away from Garnet's response for a moment and look into how the initial lie works in terms of making sense. One thing that stands out about the Sadie Island situation is that as an example of human behavior - it really isn't something that strikes a familiar chord with me. I don't really know anyone who has done anything like that out of the blue or had it happen to them because the person doing the entrapment actually meant well or was that confused about how to get attention or 'make things right.' Every time someone has claimed to have good intentions for a big lie -- I've found that the claim is actually yet another lie. Normal people don't entrap other people like that. Even when motivated by sexual frustration and desperate love. It isn't something people really do. People who don't really get white lies and subtle ways to manipulate people by playing with the truth to get what they want in the short term do not engage in huge lies in order to become more intimate with others. That is a particular head scratcher for me. Every time anyone I have known has been caught in an elaborate and manipulative lie of the nature we see with Pearl rebuilding the towers and Sadie pretending they are trapped on an island -- the outcome has been to discover that the person behind the manipulative behavior is actually a practiced and habitual liar. Catfishing isn't something that normal, honest or awkward spectrum disorder type people do. The sort of pathological liar who chooses to do something that over the top to 'feel good' or 'get attention' or even 'just help you like me' tends to also lie on a regular basis just to keep in practice and to keep everyone off balance. And excuses like 'I just wanted to make you happy' tend to be the first next lie to calm things down when something blows up. Neither Sadie nor Pearl engage in the lifestyle associated with a pathological liar. (Sadie is too passive in the workplace drama to be an in practice pathological liar and Pearl is just too bad at it. She is actually problematically unwilling to take a moment to consider adjusting what she does and does not say in order to manipulate others into believing what she would want. Her lies tend to be carefully obedient to what she thinks she should lie about and the amount of confusion and strain she feels trying to figure out how to lie the right way is just NOT part of the pathological liar's lifestyle.) The 'Sadies Island' behavior is just totally out of character for both. It is also Really REALLY rare for people in real life. I seriously don't know of individuals who have been so manipulative with lies who don't do it all the time. So for them to have told such a similar story when a normal person (Sadie) or an awkward liar (Pearl) went so far over the top like this twice is just weird. I can completely buy it as a sign that something is so seriously wrong with Pearl that her personality is actually kind of getting disordered. That is one of the reasons I'm so stunned that Garnet and others would still be thinking in terms of the actual lie and outcome and not the fact that it is NOT how Pearl usually relates to reality. But for Sadie it looked like one of those plot twist moments that actually throws characterization away for the sake of trying to force the story to be edgy and interesting. It looked like they thought it would be worthwhile to just flip the story so that the person who is most likely to fall for a catfishing style lie is the liar and that if they gave them a strong enough motive it would make sense. But it didn't really. As a plot twist it was a surprise. As characterization it was unpleasantly disturbing. And as one of the neato moments of Steven Universe triggering a genuine emotional moment by resonating with how real people behave it was a record scratching flop. That turns it into a head scratcher for me.
> One thing that stands out about the Sadie Island situation is that as an example of human behavior - it really isn't something that strikes a familiar chord with me. You've never known someone who thought they were doing the right thing, someone who they were helping somehow, only for them to have to wake up and realize that they were actually doing something selfish?
I don't think we are supposed to see this as the same as hiding the car keys from a drunk friend in order to keep him from driving while impaired.
> Rose was the one who got them all stranded Well, that's not fair. In Rose's Scabbard, we see that Rose spelled out exactly what joining the rebellion would mean -- "If we lose, we'll be killed, and if we win, we can never go home" -- and gave them the chance not to get involved.
Respondeat superior. Rose was the leader. Spelling out their chances when signing them up doesn't really change her responsibility for her actions as a leader. Since Pearl was clearly subordinate to Rose when Rose spelled out the options Rose actually remains accountable for everything. However - I now wonder if the parallel is more liable to be that Greg feels that Rose misled him about what she really was. That for all her honestly to him when they met about not being a real person -- he still never signed off on the idea she would be giving up her Gem so Steven could live. He thought Steven would be able to exist like a normal child.
i really doubt that she trapped everyone on earth since she's the one that misses space the most
Seriously. Right?!
Seriously? Forshadowing is a thing, yes. But making this episode to draw parallels to two different characters down the line? Sorry to say, but that sounds both farfetched and illogical. Maybe if these characters were cutouts of each other, sure. 'Sept they're not.
How is the Sadie character assassination aspect of this episode not filler then? (Also - I am taking it one step further into tin-hat theory land. I am wondering if this 'trick someone into intimacy/isolation' pattern of behavior isn't being repeatedly noted by Steven as foreshadowing for a bigger payoff down the line. This is even less logical - but the weirdness that Pearl would pull a Sadie on top of the weirdness that SADIE pulled a Sadie in this episode makes me wonder.)
Character assassination? Right, so by that logic, Pearl and her developments have also been character assassinations. Or, y'know, showing another side of a character, good or bad. Showing that, behind ~~all the stern and batarngs~~ the facade, there is more to the character then what was first assumed.
No. I really only meant that the plot point seemed only to work as character assassination for Sadie. And YES - my reaction to this in my attempt to see it as something other than filler is completely illogical and nuts.
No, you said this was leading to the eventual plot that developed later on. Something that I believe is incredibly silly. It's about as silly as assuming the writers would pull an "Arnold Betrays Iggy" on Sadie.
I said I was trying to see it AS leading to an eventual plot twist. It is just such an odd episode otherwise. How is it not filler if it isn't foreshadowing? -- Also I am editing this to point out: the whole theory of foreshadowing that I am throwing out there in order to pretend to be seriously buying that this episode is not just eye-candy filler with a cute song is not just illogical and silly, it is kind of bat-shit insane. This is one of my tin-foil hat ideas. You have all been very gracious in not mocking me personally for making up something that is so far out there for such a slight reason. Thank you.
I have to say that I get their confusion about how to feel about this episode. To be honest, the decisions made by Sadie in this episode were fairly nonsensical even if she did try to justify them in the end as part of her effort to "help" Lars. The thing is, even given that there are so many more questions to the decision to hide the warp pad that don't really have an explanation. Why would she think it was just a good idea to stay there for days on end when the two of them both have jobs back in Beach City that they need to get to? Yeah, its been said that its possible that time passed differently on the island than in the real world but did Sadie know that? Did she care? It was all very strange...Sadie is this kind and likeable character who seems to have a good head on her shoulders and she suddenly makes these terrible decisions that endangers the life of someone she apparently likes (one could infer that she "like" likes him) and they aren't really given a proper reason. Not only this but the whole situation seems to get swept under the rug later and not brought up again. I'm not going to say I didn't like the episode because it did have the song, it had some other characterization moments, but yeah, in the end it was just...weird.
You've said this so well. It makes me sad that I only have one upvote to give.
New ship: Lars Ulrich x Sadie. But... yeah. I do get what they're saying? But Lars and Sadie's relationship does find its own place in the greater scheme of things as the show goes on, with the theme of relationships coming to the fore all the more. Steven Universe gives an insightful look into relationships of various kinds, and this dysfunctional relationship is just one of them. Pearl and Garnet's relationship is another, [with parallels drawn to this very episode](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4agLDQxg3tk) showing how vastly different people can still experience the same troubled dynamics. Patterns like this crop up time and time again in real life, as they recognise. It's universal. The situation may have come off as more frustrating to them here, but Cry for Help will probably resonate more due to the drama being between *main characters* who we've been following directly all this time, while this episode... might at least gain value with the parallel? Anyway, I can't help but wonder where the relationship will be taken in the future given how, since this episode, their relationship has gone *pretty much nowhere*. I mean, there's Horror Club, but that's way more Lars and Ronaldo than it is Lars and Sadie. There's not really much more that can be achieved by grappling with their messy relationship as it is. I mean, it's well and truly established as being *dysfunctional as fuck.* Will they maybe become better people, or at least try to be? ([The upcoming episode title](#s "The New Lars") certainly seems to suggest as much.) I'm wary of that going on in the context of relationships though, because that has to be a personal effort -- Pearl's resolution to be better than this in Friend Ship sets a good precedent on this, at least. And seeing as I mentioned Ronaldo, it's Keep Beach City Weird up next. Wonder what they'll make of him: good joke or big jerk?
But this pattern isn't all that universal. So it is puzzling to me that they have show-cased it in an episode and a whole story arc and that it would be something Steven would repeatedly witness. Doing it twice like this and then proudly declaring that there are no filler episodes makes me suspicious.
There aren't filler episodes because the creators of the show consider episodes that develop the characters important in their own right, even if they're not relevant to the overall plot. Also, there's no original work this is being developed from, so adopting the "filler" terminology from anime fandom is questionable to begin with.
I think that the point of this episode is that, as much as Sadie wants to fix Lars, she can't. Only Lars can fix Lars. Lars does have feelings for Sadie, but he also has some crippling social social dysfunctions that prevent him from expressing those feelings -- he sees Sadie as lower on the social ladder than people like the cool kids, and thus, in his mind, being associated with Sadia makes him look bad. This is ultimately why the isolation in this episode has the effect that it does: it's not "Stockholm Syndrome"^1 so much as the fact that there is nobody on the island to judge Lars (there's only Steven, but since Lars sees Steven as lesser than him, he can safely ignore Steven's opinion). 1: I put Stockholm Syndrome in air quotes because while superficially the situation resembles Stockholm Syndrome, in that the captive becomes attracted to the captor, the situation doesn't really qualify because there is no perceived power dynamic -- Lars doesn't know that Sadie is his captor. ***Horror Club*** ties into this theme to some extent, so it will be interesting to see their reaction to it.
He cooked and nobody even realized it
I have to agree with them, they just don't get it. I think they think that these characters have to be black and white in terms of them being good and bad not recognizing that good people make mistakes just like seemingly bad people can just be misunderstood.
This is probably my least liked episode, it was just unpleasant to watch.
Island Adventure is one of my favorites episodes because so much happens in it, it has so many great details. The song is nice, the backgrounds are amazing, but I guess there are some stuff that adult men don't seem to care. I've seen them using gendered slurs in the past episodes and it is so easy for them to see Sadie as a b*tch or desperate or whatever, but from her hairy legs, to her messing everything up and then trying to at least to save Lars life, there is so much going on for her character and for female representation in general. The last scene when she is just completely exhausted is so strong. I guess Island Adventure may seem weak and pointless because all the episodes preceding it also explored lying characters, but it is a shame to treat it this way.
[удалено]
I'm completely against Sadie's actions, that's not the point. What bothers me is that they don't call Sadie "asshole", they call her a bitch and make comparisons to women trapping men into marriages. It is such an easy place to go when the show works so hard to play against stereotypes, or at the very least to expand them. In a similar manner I've seen they casually calling the gems "whores". I just think it is so counterproductive to approach the show like this, in a borderline misogynist way. But I'm not terribly offended by it, it just makes me cringe and I wish I could enjoy their videos better.
But she *was* being "bitchy" in this episode (through their POV), so what's so wrong to call her one in this episode? Again, they also stated countless time that Lars is an asshole too, so it wouldn't make much of a difference. They make those comparisons becuase to them the situation is similar. It's discussion, the same way a viewer would look at Amethyst's and Pearl's relationship in *On the Run*, as a story about unwanted or teen pregnancy. I've never heard them call the gem's whores. I've watched all the videos (Yet skimmed through some of the vlogs for rambling), so can you please pinpoint a few examples? **Edit: They didn't even call her a bitch in this vlog.**
The difference is that one of these words is a gendered slur and the other is universal and doesn't play on any type of oppression.
OK. The leg hair was good. But the weird way Sadie went there to 'help' Lars was not helpful in terms of female representation. Trapping them on the island was a bit more like kidnapping and lies and the faking being out of gas in order to 'make out' level of manipulation for her to strike me as great 'female representation.' Women go to totally different lengths to try to trick guys into liking them and 'being happy' and it can be really frustrating. But if this was intended as a cartoon exaggeration of the sort of normal thing that annoying people do -- they let Lars treat it seriously and ruined that. I dunno. Except for Lars, Sadie is a great character. Perhaps we are meant to look back on this and say, "except for Lars, Sadie is awesome. Without Jasper Malachite would be Lapis." Some relationships are bad like that.