<div class="quote"><i>Neo Bahamut wrote:
A week, as mentioned by Bolin.
<div class="quote">
<p>Deist Zealot wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">JuniperAlien wrote:
<div class="quote">OrderedComa wrote:
<div class="quote">SifuHotman90 wrote:
I'm just flabbergasted that people are still so blown away by the fact that Mako was never shown breaking up with Asami. Seriously, there was limited screen time and you're grown up enough to put 2 and 2 together. Bryke doesn't need to spoon feed everything to you.</i></div>
It's not just the Avatar fandom, there are dozens of other fanbases I've seen demanding answers over things completely pointless to the story and don't really add anything whatsoever or are something so simple a brain-damaged monkey could work out what was going on or how it would work. I've always hated this attitude whenever it crops up.</div>I guess I'm worse than a brain-damanged monkey then. Sue me.</div>Seriously? Considering that they had plenty of time for all manner of things that were far <i>more</i> pointless (but yet, they didn't even bother to properly resolve the <i>primary conflict</i>, which canonically ran a <i>lot</i> deeper than some self-hating waterbender stirring up the muggles) the "limited screen time" excuse is nonsensical.
<p>As is <i>insulting</i> people for <i>recognizing as much</i>, by the way.
</p>
</div>
<p>What are you talking about? If they are wasting times with other things, the correct response is, "Stop wasting time with those things," not "Waste more time with this other thing." The break-up was obvious, & people regularly want answers to things that don't really matter. I don't know what to tell you, the monkey remark doesn't apply to anyone who doesn't ask for elaboration on obvious, inane points. Don't do that, & you'll be golden?
</p>
</div>
<p>Except to anyone who wasn't <i>eagerly anticipating</i> a breakup, the Masami breakup was about as <i>far</i> from "obvious" as it gets. So much so, in fact, that Erica David felt the need to actively point it out in the novelization.
</p><p>And, again, you're really not proving anything—or, at least, anything about the <i>writing</i>—by comparing people who interpreted it as vague reconciliation noises to "brain-damaged monkeys" or calling said interpretation (or complaints about the vagueness of the situation) "inane."
</p><p>Vagueness, and the need to <i>flame</i> people who <i>point out</i> the vagueness, aside? Properly resolving the alleged primary conflict wouldn't have been "wasting" <i>anything</i>. In fact, it should have been a priority. And it <i>wasn't</i>, because Bryke apparently deemed the half-baked romantic drama more important.
</p>