Mabel Pines Character Discussion
I guess FE just summed it up, it looks as if this thread should be discontinued now, but it had a good run, right guys?
(11-28-2013, 06:43 AM)Floating Eyeball Wrote: I don't really think Mabel's been made like that. Remember, both times Waddles was put in a situation that would most likely lead to his death. It's not like Wendy would have died if Dipper didn't win her the panduck. And by the time she realized she would have to give Waddles up, she had spent a lot of time with him, so it wasn't like she just got him. And she did appreciate Grunkle Stan's efforts to comfort her, it was when she found out he lied to her about something she really cared about that she got mad at him. I don't think Grunkle Stan really tried to comfort her after that.
She has other moments throughout the show where she's seen being happy with other things, too, it's not as though Waddles is the only thing she can be happy around. I think it's just her relationship with Waddles, kids can get attached enough to pets that they don't want to know they were eaten by the rich brat who bullied them or by a pterodactyl when their great-uncle left him outside despite their warnings and then lied about it.

^we don't know whether or not pacifica would have eaten waddles.
for all we know, pacifica would have been an even BETTER owner.
also, i don't think it's the matter of life and death, moreso the matter of spiralling depression, that is in question here.
obviously, dipper cares enough about wendy to be kept up at night, and to worry LOADS about messing it up.
like right before they discover Blendin Blandin, Dipper was severely depressed.
and also, considering that it is summer, and they spent around 20 minutes each time they reset time, Mabel would actually have spent just around 2 1/2 days with waddles.
Without sleeping, meaning that major long-term memory storage had yet to occur
(so, in reality, mabel probably would have forgotten about waddles in a day irl)
Also, Stan DOES try to talk to Mabel after she discovers his lie.
And, when Mabel discovers that Waddles is still alive, she still backlashes at him.
Despite that he is trying to warn her of the danger of the GAPING, deep chasm.
Death isn't really a factor.
Just the sadness of not having Waddles by her side, or not having the comfort of the knowledge that he is safe, is enough to cause major anger/ depression.
But see, the thing is, Dipper is the better person at the end of The Time Traveler's Pig, because he steps up, and gives up, the thing which, to him, means happiness.

also BLARG, that's no way to be!
One of the things that makes Gravity Falls such a great show is that every single character is flawed. People are selfish. Mabel and Dipper are selfish. Almost everyone is selfish, and I think its great that the writers didn't try to push the perfect little protagonist and gave the characters room to be human and possibly change for the better.
In The Time Traveler's Pig Mabel is not the only one being selfish here. This episode is a prime example of the selfishness of Dipper as well. Boss Mabel is similar in that it focuses a lot on how selfish each character can be. The thing is: that's completely okay! People make mistakes, and sometimes, people are obsessive. That doesn't mean a character is flat or static, it means they're flawed, and the best thing about flaws is that it leaves room for character development.
Waddles means a lot to Mabel, and every character recognizes that. It is not at all unrealistic that she would get depressed or angry if he were to be taken from her, nor is it really a bad thing. Mabel's focus has never really been about making other people happy. She's not the sweet, do-no-harm, selfless character she sometimes is made to be. She has her own wants and goals, and she often puts her own desires over those of others

and that's okay

Hirsch didn't ruin Mabel, he made her a character of her own. She's not a sweetheart stereotype, she's got her own personality, sense of humor, goals, and selfish needs and I can't emphasize enough how completely okay that is.
^see, that's the thing
Mabel's case is a little bit more, severe, shall we say, because at the end of the Time Traveller’s Pig, Dipper gets over his selfishness, and gives up what he has been trying for about 2 1/2 days STRAIGHT, plus the days before the time traveller's pig occurred, to achieve to make Mabel happy with something she got effortlessly.
The problem being discussed is how the Time Traveller's Pig exhibits a Negative Character Development for Mabel.
And in Boss Mabel, it's the exact same case. Mabel becomes the boss, and tries to make everyone happy, and FAILS MISERABLY. Once again, one of Mabel's positive qualities (relentless optimism, immaterial-ism, a North-pointing moral compass) is sacrificed. Mabel keeps getting negative character developments ( and by negative, i mean that she doesn't become a better person because she learns, for example, that lying can be okay.) and it seems like she will eventually become a lawful evil or chaotic good character as the series progresses, and THAT'S the underlying issue, i think.

It may be okay to have a flawed character,
But Mabel keeps accruing more and more flaws with time.
^ Actually very well said. Especially in Boss Mabel and Bottomless Pit, I have to admit that character development had me scratching my head. And I suppose, in a sense, she really hasn't even learned anything good from those situations.

There are some instances where good development does happen, such as giving up the band in Boyz Crazy, and standing up to Gideon in The Hand That Rocks The Mabel, and the Time Traveler's Pig instance sort of goes in reverse during the events of Carpet Diem when the twins fight and it ends up being Mabel who gives up what she wants. Still not as strong development as her brother's, but I wouldn't say good development for Mabel isn't there.

Let's hope in season two the negative developments balance out and we more good brought out of Mabel than bad.
thread neutralized
Another Yung Venuz, from Abia (Click to View)
[Image: attachment.php?aid=1623]
For Mabel to love that pig that much i think there would have to be something special about waddles... I mean how could it say "Mabel" When Mabel walked up near Waddles. Or why would it trust a completely random stranger like Mabel but not another stranger to Waddles like Pacifica. There must be some kind of purpose to the pig or Stan would of cooked it up for Dinner and served it to Soos... Like maybe the pig is somehow related to Mabel..... Maybe some kind of time screw up like Mabel goes back in time and somehow turns into a pig.... i.... i really don't know... But i know there's something special about Waddles... And i really don't think Mabel is a brat for loving her pig... Maybe she feels some kind of connection....
The Quantum memory operation of GF's version of time travel.
see, the easiest way to think about it is,
anyone who is aware that time travel is involved remembers every timeline, failed or otherwise, but still act in a similar way.
That'd explain why Waddles didn't like Pacifica.
Plus, that's not really the problem, of course you love pets
The problem is the Degree to which Mabel loves Waddles.

and no, snorts can mean whatever you want them to, so if Mabel wanted Waddles to be saying Mabel, then Waddles was saying Mabel.
i kinda don't think waddles would taste good either.
Another Yung Venuz, from Abia (Click to View)
[Image: attachment.php?aid=1623]
Just a couple weeks ago, I thinking about that quote in D&MGTMANSF “Growing Up Is Optional” and what it could mean. I then just realized that with Mabel’s silly and childish personality, I thought that maybe one of the main reasons for silly behavior (besides Mabel just being Mabel) is coming from a fear of growing up and having to become a completely different person. “Growing Up Is Optional” could mean that although while you’re growing up you have to be more responsible, you don’t have to completely change who you are. I believe that when the twins have their big argument later on and by the end of the series, Mabel will have learned this. What do you all think?
(08-27-2015, 09:01 AM)AwesomeDude1 Wrote: What do you think?

I'd like to see a description for the Topic and not an advertisement for your Tumblr (we have of course a thread for Tumblr users)

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)