Monday, January 4, 2016

Steven Universe - The Answer Episode Review

The Answer gives us a flashback as to how Ruby and Sapphire first met. Sapphire was an aristocratic gem sent to Eartn to settle the rebellion caused by Rose Quartz.  Three Rubies were assigned to Sapphire as bodyguards for this mission.

Sapphire, being able to see the future, knew Rose and Pearl would attack and essentially finish her off and the Rubies and was willing to accept her fate. Rose and Pearl did arrive on scene and destroyed the two Rubies. The surviving Ruby however defied Sapphire's fate and saves her from Pearl, causing the accidental fusion into Garnet. Rose and Pearl escape and Blue Diamond, fuious on not only Sapphire's botched Future Vision, but also the fusion of her and Ruby, ordered Ruby destroyed. The two then escape to Earth.

Skip to near the end where Garnet encounters Rose and Pearl again, Garnet asks why Sapphire's vision didn't go as planned and why her fusion happened. The episode ends with Garnet telling Steven that the answer was "love".

So a couple of things. We learn from this episode that Fusion is essentially used primarily for battle, and if the fusion are gems of the same type, it essentially becomes a larger version of itself. The flashback also confirms of multiple gems of the same type, as Blue Diamond is clearly seen with a Pearl on her side. In addition, the society of Homeworld has a caste system depending on the gem. In this case, Ruby is a low class common soldier, whereas Sapphire is a high class aristocrat.

All this made me look back at the Full version of the 2nd Intro to the show, and what's Garnet's reason for protecting the Earth. Based on what I've seen in The Answer, I can interpret that Garnet's goal is to break down the barriers of the caste system, knowing that Homeworld will never accept a Fusion like herself. If you choose to see it as metaphorical representation of the struggle for equality, whether race, religion, gender, etc., you can do that too and it's quite acceptable.

Two things I don't like about this episode. One, the entire flashback and pace seems rushed, with not much time to develop Ruby and Sapphire and their eventual love for one another. I understand they can't do it in such a small timeframe, so in this case, the 'Love at First Sight' trope applies. Still, I've seen a number of works where in a few minutes we get to know a lot of a certain character and see that said character develop in such a short time, and pretty much we get hooked.

The second is the song number. Somehow I felt the entire song was forcibly added just for the sake of it, rather than to advance the story and further develop Ruby and Sapphire's feelings for one another. It was also obvious from the way the song is presented that Charlene Yi has trouble singing, so her lines are mostly just dialogue. I would prefer just a soothing background music and some clever dialogue to have these two hook up rather than this.

I'll throw in a third issue, which is the explanation why Sapphire's vision wasn't accurate and the reason being the love between her and Ruby. It's a little hard for me to grasp because I get the impression that Sapphire's love for Ruby, and in turn, Garnet's love for Steven, is the reason why the use of Future Vision can't sometimes be accurate, or doesn't work at all throughout the series. Is it because of love that Garnet didn't foresee Steven making multiple versions of himself in Steven and The Stevens, or his Accelerated Aging in So Many Birthdays, or that he'd find out the Test was rigged?

The staff of Steven Universe, particularly former director Ian Jones-Quartey, made it clear that it's just a cartoon and therefore, we shouldn't think too hard on what's going on. True, but Steven Universe is not Gumball, where in the latter, things aren't supposed to make any sense - it just does what it does and we sit back and enjoy. Inconsistencies in a structured narrative like Steven Universe is inevitable, but I do hope it's minimal and not as big and noticeable as, dare I say, Dragon Ball Super.

No comments:

Post a Comment