Jump to content

Victoria Walker is a totally unnecessary addition to Ark's animated series


Frankenburger

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Pipinghot said:

Those are true statements, they also have nothing to do with your ridiculous use of "triggered" or my reply to you.

Truth be told, the ol' triple quote and dismissing people's opinions by labeling them as "false arguments" does little for producing a productive conversation. It's quite clear you view this thread as a debate of ideology and not a debate on the merits of marketing and story telling, making use of the word "triggered" not so ridiculous after all.

  

1 hour ago, Pipinghot said:

No one's forgetting that, you're making a false argument. As @RedOne already pointed out, lesbian couples are not like highlanders, there can be more than one.

Just like there can be more than one hetero couple in a story. No two relationships are the same, two different lesbian couples can have their own individual characteristics and contribution to the story just as much as two different hetero relationships can have.

You're right. There CAN be multiple relationships of the same type in a single show. However, no matter how you slice it, Ark will have a limited run time. This means that time spent developing one relationship could have been spent developing something else. Do you know how you get a more all inclusive story? By having more than 1 type of character demographic and more than 1 type of character archetype. The more variety there is, the more likely the general audience will find something to latch onto. That said, why does Helena have to be gay/bi? Why can't she be straight? Why does her orientation or relationship status even need to be disclosed in the first place? These are things you should be thinking about from the construction standpoint of a narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

Truth be told, the ol' triple quote and dismissing people's opinions by labeling them as "false arguments" does little for producing a productive conversation.

Truth be told, if you don't want people to disagree with your posts then don't post them in public. These are public forums, with public discussions & public debates. You have a right to post your opinions and arguments, other people have just as much right to disagree or argue with them.

 

Making false arguments does less than "little" for producing a productive conversation, a false argument is the opposite of productive. If I made the claim that all stories with dogs are bad stories you would have no problem with that being called a false argument. It would, in fact, be very productive to call that dog claim a false argument. Calling out false arguments is a big part of how discussions/debates work. Some arguments are valid, some are not valid, establishing which arguments are valid and which are not is part of the process of discussion/debate/argument.

 

Any nonsense about triple posting is exactly that, nonsense, it's just smoke & mirrors intended to avoid the real discussion because you don't like what someone is saying. If you can't figure out an answer to someone's argument then using dishonest red herrings like "the ol' triple quote" is meaningless and arguing in bad faith.

 

* You created a false dichotomy (a false choice) when the two options you presented are not mutually exclusive. Calling that a false choice is nothing more or less than an accurate description of the argument you presented. In other words, you presented a logical fallacy as an argument, that's a false argument.

* You made the claim that "people are forgetting" something that no one actually for got. You made a false assertion/accusation, that's a false argument.

24 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

It's quite clear you view this thread as a debate of ideology and not a debate on the merits of marketing and story telling, making use of the word "triggered" not so ridiculous after all.

Again, false accusations aren't going to get you anywhere. I just enjoy deconstructing and debunking bad arguments, if you can't tell the difference between "being triggered" and "disagreeing with your posts" then that's your issue to deal with.

If you don't want people to disagree with your posts then don't post them in public.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TimeBomb2003 said:

I think that the people (me included) who express their concern about helena being gay just really don't want the show to go in the fire like Batwoman.

That too, yes. It's really disheartening how many potentially good shows went down the drain as of late because of poor writing and shallow characters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

In my opinion it doesn't fit at all. First of all I'm afraid that they may forcibly change the character of Helena, who is one of my favorite characters. Also, it's foolish to include both the wife and the mother (yes, her mother is also in the cast), because they are theoretically very important characters to Helena and she didn't mention them in the game. Finally, the couple of Diana and Mei Yin is basically perfect as an example, and the message of diversity is well conveyed by the fact that multiple characters from different places and even times become friends with each other. Ark is already a saga open to everyone, so Victoria isn't even going to prove anything. Dunno, I hope that even if they don't remove this they will be able to do a good job without forcing everything ... They can't ruin this series for me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Having 2 lesbians couples is redundant? Is more then one lesbian couple in real life redundant? Is having more then one straight couple in fiction redundant? It's just a character trait, nothing about it is redundant in the slightest, that'd be like saying two characters with blue eyes is redundant. I think the inclusion may be a little sudden cause it seemed like Helena was into Mei Yin but that got ended abruptly and I wanted to see more of that but it makes sense that a character who is attracted to a woman would be attracted to other women, it also makes sense that more then one other lesbian exists that she could find a relationship with. 

Why do you even consider this pandering? Is having a straight couple pandering? Is having a POC pandering? These are all just traits, attributes, things that people in real life are. If you're drawn into a show because of a lesbian relationship that isn't pandering, that's someone seeing themselves finally get representation or the complete opposite side of that coin, being weirdly obsessed in a negative way over two fictional characters. People aren't going to watch the show cause it has lesbians, maybe they will hear about it cause of that part but if its a bad show they'll stop watching and if they keep watching its cause its a good show. The lesbian relationship is just a part of the story. Also why are you limiting what the story can be? Ark doesn't have to just be a godzilla fight thing like you said (and it isn't and if you think it is you've missed A LOT) nor does it just have to be romance, it can be both and it has been both and more. 

If you think the inclusion of another character is going to ruin the show whether that be because you think it will take time away from the main story or simply just cause you don't like the idea of more then one lesbian couple I have a simple solution: don't watch it, doesn't seem like your its target audience anyways.

As for why they didn't include this character until now there are a few possibilities. First maybe she isn't on the arks and is from Helena's life in modern day Australia. Another possibility is an animated show with only 4 characters would be horrible so they are adding some more characters. It could also be as simple as they always had the idea for this character but as a relatively small studio making a not well known game infamous for its bugs in 2015 they didn't have the time or confidence to include more then 4 characters. 4 characters for an open world survival game is plenty, it's more then most other open world survival games have but for a show it is nowhere near enough. Ark's story wasn't very important then so they only including what they really needed to. The animated series will not have 14 characters from the game like you said. The show only takes place on the island as far as we're aware so that means it is only Helena, Rockwell, Mei Yin and Nerva. No Santiago, Diana, graduate students, Raia, John, Nida or Gabriel. Even if it does take place on more then the island that still means that on SE they will no longer have Mei Yin or Nerva so it would still be 4 characters then aberration would have the most with like 10 then extinction with 4 and then genesis with 3.

This isn't ark's first retcon and this isn't even a retcon. A long time ago the respawn mechanic was cannon in deleted explorer notes from characters who no longer exist but then respawn was added again later. A retcon involves changing something that we know as fact, adding this character is just a piece of Helena we never knew about. Helena never had a partner so this is not replacing or changing something we already know. Helena was already likely queer based on how she talks about Mei Yin so that isn't anything new either.

Wildcard now has the chance to go back and flesh some things out, if that includes adding a new character here or there who cares so long as it doesn't completely change the story which I doubt it will. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 10/29/2021 at 1:41 PM, Chellzie said:

Why do you even consider this pandering? ... 

...you don't like the idea of more then one lesbian couple I have a simple solution: don't watch it, doesn't seem like your its target audience anyways.

So you say that there is no pandering taking place here, but then say that it has a target audience?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2021 at 11:45 AM, Frankenburger said:

While Helena's personal life was never outlined in clear detail, none of her explorer notes ever made mention of having a wife. Meanwhile, said notes went into depth with regards to her relationship between the other survivors.

 

On 3/3/2021 at 2:27 PM, Frankenburger said:

Mei Yin's nationality is Chinese, and likely stems from a historical era where same sex relationships was frowned down upon (which honestly, it still is over in China).

Maybe that is why the explorer notes never made mention. The survivors are from various times so interaction should occur from the characteristic. Whether it is accepted or rebuked. Does someone that truly cares about her offer to help her mentally? Does a group try killing her because of it? Is it seen as common or held in high reverence?
 

Dr. Sophia,Isabelle,Helena,Rockwell, Mei Yin and Nerva may all view it differently.

On 3/3/2021 at 6:17 PM, Pipinghot said:

I'm trying to make the point that good writers can make a story work in more than one way

For now we just saw a bit of the animated series a list and a few interviews not much to go on to determine the true quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

My opinion is this: Helena being in a pre-established relationship (no matter the orientation), is giving the character clear motivation to survive the Ark and get back to her significant other. Trying to get back to the loved ones left behind is a pretty clear motivator that a large audience will be able to understand. I don't really think it changes the character - nothing was mentioned about a prior relationship in her explorer notes, but there's nothing saying she didn't have one, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I recently finished watching Lost.  Aside from being an intense show, Lost had characters in different romantic settings without becoming a romance story (the story of Jin and Sun being especially beautiful).  If done well, working a romance into a story actually makes the story more compelling.  Of course, if done badly, it muddies the water and harms the story.  Same thing for having lots of characters.  Lost pulled it off well.  I'm looking forward to seeing if the Ark series pulls it off well.

As for lesbian characters... one of my favorite couples are Haruka and Michiru from Sailor Moon.  Seriously.  To be honest, the orientation of lovers means little to me.  It's the dynamic I care about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 3 months later...

Given the arguments above, I'll get the unpleasantries out of the way: Yes, I'm a straight, white male (I know, I'm practically the devil given form - see you in Hell, I'll be the guy in the big chair, you can't miss me). No, I am not against same-sex relationships or the LGBTQ community.

Giving Helena a significant other, I think, is a mistake in terms of story-telling. Does the relationship actually service the plot? She never mentioned someone as important as a significant other in her notes. Even if she wasn't on the ARK and Helena thought she was long dead and in the past, she'd have still mentioned it like "If only Victoria were here with me to see this". But no, this Victoria character's come out of nowhere... 

The only way this new character can work is if it's not "Home Deus Helena" from ARK's already established lore, but a clone of Helena that came to life on Arat Prime post-Genesis Pt 2 and we're not on an ARK, but Arat Prime.

A significant other just complicates things unnecessarily. Same goes for any of the characters that don't already have a significant other in the established lore. I'd have just left it up to the imagination of the viewer - why does her sexuality matter when she's busy saving everyone's collective asses?

Personally, I thought Helena had enough on her plate trying to figure out the ARK and becoming an ascended human (granted she didn't know that was her path while she was starting out) to worry about having a significant other. I thought her character was well written in the game. She was strong, intelligent, resourceful and independent. She didn't need anyone to hold her hand. Her character reminded me of Zoe from Firefly/Serenity or Eleven from Stranger Things. The viewers/readers know they're strong, they don't need tailored scenes blatantly articulating that power. They need scenes blatantly articulating they're still human (or a fractal personality in HLN-As case). Some shows don't nail this part and it comes off like a superiority complex. I hope ARK avoids this issue.

A strong, resourceful, smart and (up until now) independent female character in ARK's established lore now HAS TO have a significant other? Why? She kicked ass alone, not to mention she develops strong (but not sexual - at least I don't recall it being discussed) relationships with several characters over the course of ARK and the subsequent DLC's lore. Now all of a sudden she needs someone to love? That actually weakens her character, not strengthens it, in my eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Cailean556 said:

Given the arguments above, I'll get the unpleasantries out of the way: Yes, I'm a straight, white male (I know, I'm practically the devil given form - see you in Hell, I'll be the guy in the big chair, you can't miss me). No, I am not against same-sex relationships or the LGBTQ community.

Giving Helena a significant other, I think, is a mistake in terms of story-telling. Does the relationship actually service the plot? She never mentioned someone as important as a significant other in her notes. Even if she wasn't on the ARK and Helena thought she was long dead and in the past, she'd have still mentioned it like "If only Victoria were here with me to see this". But no, this Victoria character's come out of nowhere... 

The only way this new character can work is if it's not "Home Deus Helena" from ARK's already established lore, but a clone of Helena that came to life on Arat Prime post-Genesis Pt 2 and we're not on an ARK, but Arat Prime.

A significant other just complicates things unnecessarily. Same goes for any of the characters that don't already have a significant other in the established lore. I'd have just left it up to the imagination of the viewer - why does her sexuality matter when she's busy saving everyone's collective asses?

Personally, I thought Helena had enough on her plate trying to figure out the ARK and becoming an ascended human (granted she didn't know that was her path while she was starting out) to worry about having a significant other. I thought her character was well written in the game. She was strong, intelligent, resourceful and independent. She didn't need anyone to hold her hand. Her character reminded me of Zoe from Firefly/Serenity or Eleven from Stranger Things. The viewers/readers know they're strong, they don't need tailored scenes blatantly articulating that power. They need scenes blatantly articulating they're still human (or a fractal personality in HLN-As case). Some shows don't nail this part and it comes off like a superiority complex. I hope ARK avoids this issue.

A strong, resourceful, smart and (up until now) independent female character in ARK's established lore now HAS TO have a significant other? Why? She kicked ass alone, not to mention she develops strong (but not sexual - at least I don't recall it being discussed) relationships with several characters over the course of ARK and the subsequent DLC's lore. Now all of a sudden she needs someone to love? That actually weakens her character, not strengthens it, in my eyes.

I agree with pretty much everything here, except when you said how your not against the LGBTQ, whether you are or not. Unfortunately people who write a post on any site talking about something LGBTQ related always seem to start with something like "Before you read, just know that I have absolutely nothing against LGBT people", or whatever. Seemingly trying to avoid being labeled as any of the phobics. But unfortunately, its futile, because unless you accept it blindly, no amount of asking for forgiveness will grant you any. Your already a bigot of the highest degree. So I'd say, just own/ignore it. They made up the words, so they can make up the definition, and if the definition of homophobia is not wanting a character to be drastically changed from who they are, then I guess we're homephobic.

...

Other than that though, you pretty much hit the nail in the head. (And I'll join you next to your throne in hell if that's ok).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...