What's your guys' opinion on Mabel's selfishness?
#11
In regards to consequences and criticism: I'd say that both Dipper and Mabel receive their fair share of consequences and criticism for their selfish actions.

Mostly consequences and not criticism though, because unlike with the fanbase, there's no zealous morality police in the series.

Some examples: Dipper and Mabel both face the consequences of selfish romantic pursuits in Boyz Crazy; Dipper and Mabel both have their selfishness exploited by Bill in Sock Opera and Dipper & Mabel vs. The Future, respectively; and both Dipper and Mabel face the consequences of their equally selfish motivations in Dipper & Mabel vs. The Future, which mirrors similar incidents in The Time Traveler's Pig, Summerween and Carpet Diem.

EDIT: looks like some of you are saying she doesn't really face consequences, so let me know if any of you want me to elaborate on my examples. Imo it's all there, but can seem like it's not if you don't put yourselves in Mabel's shoes.

(12-20-2016, 02:55 PM)Magpie Wrote: The closest we've come to Mabel getting called out on her selfishness was in Sock Opera (and it was important for her character development.) One of the biggest, most glaring examples is the whole incident with the rift, the apprenticeship and Weirdmageddon (esp. Part 2). It's hard to deny that Mabel is being blatantly selfish in her bubble,

She's not being blatantly selfish in the bubble. Firstly, it's a trap designed to prey on her mind, and it also works successfully on Wendy and Soos (and even on Dipper, until fake Wendy winks); and secondly, she fully offers to let Dipper/Wendy/Soos stay with her.

(12-20-2016, 02:55 PM)Magpie Wrote: as she is when arguing over the apprenticeship

That implies Mabel is morally wrong to stand in Dipper's way. However, Mabel is a lead protagonist with her own autonomy, not a side character whose sole purpose is to support Dipper. Dipper's pursuit of his apprenticeship is equally if not more selfish than Mabel's desire to stick with her brother.

(12-20-2016, 02:55 PM)Magpie Wrote: and giving the rift to Billendin.

Dipper and Ford have also fallen for Bill's tricks before. So why is there a double standard when Mabel does the same?

(12-20-2016, 02:55 PM)Magpie Wrote: That's fine and well - like I just said, flaws make a character interesting. However, it's not fine and well when there are no consequences for them. Notice how nobody brings up the rift, for example, not long after Weirdmageddon is started.

Dipper explicitly brings up the rift in the beginning of Weirdmageddon 1; he presumes that it cracked in the bag. And Mabel is not criticized by Ford or Dipper for falling for Bill's tricks, because that would make Ford and Dipper hypocrites.

(12-20-2016, 02:55 PM)Magpie Wrote: A smaller, but no less important example is Time Traveller's Pig. Mabel was incredibly selfish in this one, it's blatantly obvious, and yet, there are no consequences for her actions until Sock Opera. Some may argue that Dipper sacrifing his chance with Wendy was far less important than Waddles, but I tend to disagree (in part.) You've got to put this in Dipper's perspective - at this time in the series, his crush on Wendy is in full swing. In the mind of a twelve year old boy, he would have seen it as an amazing chance. Now, I'm not saying that it was equal to winning a pig, but it would have been important to Dipper at the time. I'm not sure if that makes sense but oh well.

Yeah, it would have been important to Dipper at the time. But Waddles is also important to Mabel at the time. Both Dipper and Mabel have equally valid desires here; it's just Dipper who chooses to be selfless and give up his. But this doesn't automatically make Mabel more selfish — they were both equally selfish since the beginning.

If Dipper gives up Wendy, then Mabel's criticized for selfishness. If Mabel gives up Waddles, then Dipper would get criticized for selfishness. As Baron said, there's no solution here except having neither get what they want, which would just be sad.

(12-20-2016, 02:55 PM)Magpie Wrote: I agree with ReptilePatrol here: both Dipper and Mabel do selfish things through the series. They're both equally selfish. But the main difference I notice is that Dipper more actively faces consequences and criticism for his selfishness, whereas Mabel is often let off the hook. Maybe it has to do with Mabel (and Stan, for that matter) acting as the "heart" of the show, and Dipper (and Ford) as the "head", especially in a show where heart and family are preached to be the most important.

Mind you, it is blown out of proportion, but it's there.

When is Dipper ever criticized for his selfishness? Other than self-doubt, the closest example I can think of is Wendy criticizing Robbie and Dipper collectively near the end of Boyz Crazy. Mabel, meanwhile, is criticized by Candy and Grenda in Boyz Crazy, and by Bill in Sock Opera. That's off the top of my head so feel free to point out examples I may have missed.

With consequences, where do you feel Mabel faces less consequences than Dipper? I've pointed out some examples at the top of my post where they both face consequences, but let me know if there's examples I missed.

(12-20-2016, 05:28 PM)Dr. Quackpot Wrote: I don't like that Mabel, after accepting the fact that she had to grow up eventually, was still able to take Waddles home with her at the end. I feel like it would've been better if she let go of Waddles, kind of giving off the hint that Waddles represents Mabel's "childhood" or what have ye. It could've been great symbolism, like she gives up Waddles like she gives up her childhood.

But nope, didn't happen. Dipper says no to the apprenticeship and Waddles is allowed on the bus. Mabel gets what she wanted, in the end.

I agree it would have been nice symbolism, but Mabel had already accepted that Waddles had to stay behind. It wasn't Mabel who insists Waddles come along, it was Stan. And Mabel doesn't deserve criticism for things she doesn't do.
Reply
#12
I love Mabel as a character, but they kind of screwed up her development in mid to late season 2. In SOTBE, she finally gets over past crushes with Wendy's help and realizes she doesn't need a boyfriend to be happy. But then, in NMM she's fighting with Candy and Grenda over a boy. Horrible writing.

In The Love God, she makes Robbie and Tambry fall in love because of a potion and they don't have Mabel undo the spell or show the potion wearing off.

In D, D, And More D, Dipper said that to Mabel that her and Stan's teasing bothers him. Stan apologizes at the end, but not Mabel. Why?

In Roadside Attraction, despite learning from her matchmaking mistakes in Into The Bunker and Love God, she and Grenda tries to match make Dipper and Candy and also makes fun of Dipper still having a crush on Wendy.

In D, D, And More D, Dipper said that to Mabel that her and Stan's teasing bothers him. Stan apologizes at the end, but not Mabel. Why?

In The Last Mabelcorn, the episode wasn't really about Mabel learning from her flaws, it was about the writers saying she's perfect.

In The Weirdmageddon storyline, Mabel is never called out for giving the rift to Bill. Yes she was tricked and it was an accident, but she caused a big problem. They were setting that up but they never resolved it. Why? That really pissed me off. Neither Dipper or Mabel apologized for their mistakes with the rift.

About Mabel creating Dippy Fresh, I don't think Mabel was trying to replace her brother, but they should've explained that better.

And I do agree that it might've been the better choice to have Waddles stay in GF and Soos and Melody taking care of him for Mabel.
[Image: mabel_pines_fan_button_by_requestbuttons-d5j5abu.png]
Reply
#13
@AwesomeDude some of this was discussed before, but interesting points with the matchmaking and The Last Mabelcorn! Now that you bring it up I'd love to discuss the latter further, actually.

(12-21-2016, 07:08 PM)AwesomeDude1 Wrote: I love Mabel as a character, but they kind of screwed up her development in mid to late season 2. In SOTBE, she finally gets over past crushes with Wendy's help and realizes she doesn't need a boyfriend to be happy. But then, in NMM she's fighting with Candy and Grenda over a boy. Horrible writing.

In The Love God, she makes Robbie and Tambry fall in love because of a potion and they don't have Mabel undo the spell or show the potion wearing off.

In the Mabel thread it was made clear that NMM and TLG are not solid examples of Mabel going back on what she learned in SotBE. In NMM, it's Grenda that pressures Mabel into going after Marius with them, and Mabel is not pursuing a personal romantic relationship in TLG. The key here is personal romantic relationships — which Mabel stops pursuing after SotBE.

(12-21-2016, 07:08 PM)AwesomeDude1 Wrote: In Roadside Attraction, despite learning from her matchmaking mistakes in Into The Bunker and Love God, she and Grenda tries to match make Dipper and Candy and also makes fun of Dipper still having a crush on Wendy.

She learns how to move on from her personal failed romances in SotBE, but she never really learns from her matchmaking, which isn't a focus of the story. In fact, perhaps she decided that she was good at it, after her success in Into the Bunker and Soos and the Real Girl.

(12-21-2016, 07:08 PM)AwesomeDude1 Wrote: In D, D, And More D, Dipper said that to Mabel that her and Stan's teasing bothers him. Stan apologizes at the end, but not Mabel. Why?

At what point in the episode does Dipper say this?
Re: Stan, it was Stan who actually made fun of the game and threw the Infinity Die and caused the entire mess. It makes more sense for him to apologize if he did all the damage, does it not?

(12-21-2016, 07:08 PM)AwesomeDude1 Wrote: In The Last Mabelcorn, the episode wasn't really about Mabel learning from her flaws, it was about the writers saying she's perfect.

Maybe not "perfect" per se but, to borrow Mabel's words, that morality is relative. And relative to the other characters in the series, Mabel's morals are on point — it's just that she, like anyone, can make mistakes. Interestingly, it's only part of the fandom that takes issue with Mabel's morality, as everybody in the series (and by extension the writers) has no problem with her.

Perhaps the writers are trying to highlight Mabel's intentions and get the fandom to calm down here? In The Last Mabelcorn, all of her antics in the good deeds montage are well-intentioned but half of them don't exactly end well — which reflects Mabel in the series as a whole.

(12-21-2016, 07:08 PM)AwesomeDude1 Wrote: In The Weirdmageddon storyline, Mabel is never called out for giving the rift to Bill. Yes she was tricked and it was an accident, but she caused a big problem. They were setting that up but they never resolved it. Why? That really pissed me off. Neither Dipper or Mabel apologized for their mistakes with the rift.

None of the people tricked by Bill — Ford, Dipper, Mabel or even Blendin — apologize for it, even though they all cause a big problem. If the three male characters here don't apologize, then why is Mabel being held to a higher and double standard? Additionally, is there really a need for any of them to apologize for honest mistakes? And even if there was, who would they apologize to?
Reply
#14
(12-21-2016, 08:59 PM)ReptilePatrol Wrote: @AwesomeDude some of this was discussed before, but interesting points with the matchmaking and The Last Mabelcorn! Now that you bring it up I'd love to discuss the latter further, actually.

(12-21-2016, 07:08 PM)AwesomeDude1 Wrote: I love Mabel as a character, but they kind of screwed up her development in mid to late season 2. In SOTBE, she finally gets over past crushes with Wendy's help and realizes she doesn't need a boyfriend to be happy. But then, in NMM she's fighting with Candy and Grenda over a boy. Horrible writing.

In The Love God, she makes Robbie and Tambry fall in love because of a potion and they don't have Mabel undo the spell or show the potion wearing off.

In the Mabel thread it was made clear that NMM and TLG are not solid examples of Mabel going back on what she learned in SotBE. In NMM, it's Grenda that pressures Mabel into going after Marius with them, and Mabel is not pursuing a personal romantic relationship in TLG. The key here is personal romantic relationships — which Mabel stops pursuing after SotBE.

SOTBE was the chance to be done with the Mabel romance A and B plots as a whole. And it doesn't matter that someone pressured her. It's still a Mabel romance plot and this time a bad one.

(12-21-2016, 07:08 PM)AwesomeDude1 Wrote: In Roadside Attraction, despite learning from her matchmaking mistakes in Into The Bunker and Love God, she and Grenda tries to match make Dipper and Candy and also makes fun of Dipper still having a crush on Wendy.

She learns how to move on from her personal failed romances in SotBE, but she never really learns from her matchmaking, which isn't a focus of the story. In fact, perhaps she decided that she was good at it, after her success in Into the Bunker and Soos and the Real Girl.

She didn't matchmake Soos and Melody. Soos and Melody just bumped into each other. And her matchmaking in Into The Bunker almost got herself and the others hurt/killed.

(12-21-2016, 07:08 PM)AwesomeDude1 Wrote: In D, D, And More D, Dipper said that to Mabel that her and Stan's teasing bothers him. Stan apologizes at the end, but not Mabel. Why?

At what point in the episode does Dipper say this?
Re: Stan, it was Stan who actually made fun of the game and threw the Infinity Die and caused the entire mess. It makes more sense for him to apologize if he did all the damage, does it not?

Dipper says this to Mabel in the episode. "And he doesn't make fun of me all the time like you and Stan do."

(12-21-2016, 07:08 PM)AwesomeDude1 Wrote: In The Last Mabelcorn, the episode wasn't really about Mabel learning from her flaws, it was about the writers saying she's perfect.

Maybe not "perfect" per se but, to borrow Mabel's words, that morality is relative. And relative to the other characters in the series, Mabel's morals are on point — it's just that she, like anyone, can make mistakes. Interestingly, it's only part of the fandom that takes issue with Mabel's morality, as everybody in the series (and by extension the writers) has no problem with her.

Perhaps the writers are trying to highlight Mabel's intentions and get the fandom to calm down here? In The Last Mabelcorn, all of her antics in the good deeds montage are well-intentioned but half of them don't exactly end well — which reflects Mabel in the series as a whole.

Could've been written better though. Plus in the episode Mabel realizes that she can sometimes take her teasing a little to far and doesn't apologize.

(12-21-2016, 07:08 PM)AwesomeDude1 Wrote: In The Weirdmageddon storyline, Mabel is never called out for giving the rift to Bill. Yes she was tricked and it was an accident, but she caused a big problem. They were setting that up but they never resolved it. Why? That really pissed me off. Neither Dipper or Mabel apologized for their mistakes with the rift.

None of the people tricked by Bill — Ford, Dipper, Mabel or even Blendin — apologize for it, even though they all cause a big problem. If the three male characters here don't apologize, then why is Mabel being held to a higher and double standard? Additionally, is there really a need for any of them to apologize for honest mistakes? And even if there was, who would they apologize to?

Yes it was a mistake, but it caused the apocalypse. She should have felt bad and sorry about it. Plus Dipper thought the rift cracked in the backpack and the show never shows him learning the truth.
[Image: mabel_pines_fan_button_by_requestbuttons-d5j5abu.png]
Reply
#15
(12-22-2016, 07:12 AM)AwesomeDude1 Wrote:
(12-21-2016, 08:59 PM)ReptilePatrol Wrote: @AwesomeDude some of this was discussed before, but interesting points with the matchmaking and The Last Mabelcorn! Now that you bring it up I'd love to discuss the latter further, actually.

(12-21-2016, 07:08 PM)AwesomeDude1 Wrote: I love Mabel as a character, but they kind of screwed up her development in mid to late season 2. In SOTBE, she finally gets over past crushes with Wendy's help and realizes she doesn't need a boyfriend to be happy. But then, in NMM she's fighting with Candy and Grenda over a boy. Horrible writing.

In The Love God, she makes Robbie and Tambry fall in love because of a potion and they don't have Mabel undo the spell or show the potion wearing off.

In the Mabel thread it was made clear that NMM and TLG are not solid examples of Mabel going back on what she learned in SotBE. In NMM, it's Grenda that pressures Mabel into going after Marius with them, and Mabel is not pursuing a personal romantic relationship in TLG. The key here is personal romantic relationships — which Mabel stops pursuing after SotBE.

SOTBE was the chance to be done with the Mabel romance A and B plots as a whole. And it doesn't matter that someone pressured her. It's still a Mabel romance plot and this time a bad one.

(12-21-2016, 07:08 PM)AwesomeDude1 Wrote: In Roadside Attraction, despite learning from her matchmaking mistakes in Into The Bunker and Love God, she and Grenda tries to match make Dipper and Candy and also makes fun of Dipper still having a crush on Wendy.

She learns how to move on from her personal failed romances in SotBE, but she never really learns from her matchmaking, which isn't a focus of the story. In fact, perhaps she decided that she was good at it, after her success in Into the Bunker and Soos and the Real Girl.

She didn't matchmake Soos and Melody. Soos and Melody just bumped into each other. And her matchmaking in Into The Bunker almost got herself and the others hurt/killed.

(12-21-2016, 07:08 PM)AwesomeDude1 Wrote: In D, D, And More D, Dipper said that to Mabel that her and Stan's teasing bothers him. Stan apologizes at the end, but not Mabel. Why?

At what point in the episode does Dipper say this?
Re: Stan, it was Stan who actually made fun of the game and threw the Infinity Die and caused the entire mess. It makes more sense for him to apologize if he did all the damage, does it not?

Dipper says this to Mabel in the episode. "And he doesn't make fun of me all the time like you and Stan do."

(12-21-2016, 07:08 PM)AwesomeDude1 Wrote: In The Last Mabelcorn, the episode wasn't really about Mabel learning from her flaws, it was about the writers saying she's perfect.

Maybe not "perfect" per se but, to borrow Mabel's words, that morality is relative. And relative to the other characters in the series, Mabel's morals are on point — it's just that she, like anyone, can make mistakes. Interestingly, it's only part of the fandom that takes issue with Mabel's morality, as everybody in the series (and by extension the writers) has no problem with her.

Perhaps the writers are trying to highlight Mabel's intentions and get the fandom to calm down here? In The Last Mabelcorn, all of her antics in the good deeds montage are well-intentioned but half of them don't exactly end well — which reflects Mabel in the series as a whole.

Could've been written better though. Plus in the episode Mabel realizes that she can sometimes take her teasing a little to far and doesn't apologize.

(12-21-2016, 07:08 PM)AwesomeDude1 Wrote: In The Weirdmageddon storyline, Mabel is never called out for giving the rift to Bill. Yes she was tricked and it was an accident, but she caused a big problem. They were setting that up but they never resolved it. Why? That really pissed me off. Neither Dipper or Mabel apologized for their mistakes with the rift.

None of the people tricked by Bill — Ford, Dipper, Mabel or even Blendin — apologize for it, even though they all cause a big problem. If the three male characters here don't apologize, then why is Mabel being held to a higher and double standard? Additionally, is there really a need for any of them to apologize for honest mistakes? And even if there was, who would they apologize to?

Yes it was a mistake, but it caused the apocalypse. She should have felt bad and sorry about it. Plus Dipper thought the rift cracked in the backpack and the show never shows him learning the truth.
Are we ever going to see Dipper learn the truth or no?
Your Math is no match for my gun, you Idiot!
[Image: 320?cb=20150805041959]
Reply
#16
You don't need to quote the entire post just to say that. At least cut it down a tiny bit.
Yo #teens! While you're out there gettin rad remember that your death is 100% inevitable & all life is meaningless, bae.✌


Reply
#17
I never gave it a second thought until I saw people talk about it tbh. I think it's been kinda blown out of proportion tbh

People blame her for causing the Weirdmageddon, but Bill was a master manipulator who had been playing people like puppets for centuries, of course he knew exactly what to say to a 12 year old girl who was already emotionally wrecked.

Dipper had his fair share of selfish actions, but tbh, that's all about growing up and he learned his lessons from that. I still think they're both two of the more well written and likable characters in cartoons. Like...Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends was one of my childhood favorite shows, I go back to watch it recently and I found all of the characters unbearable. They're all loud, selfish and in some cases, just flat out cruel. Dipper and Mabel have faults, yeah, but they clearly still love each other and end up being good people.

My only issues is that, yes, it did seem like Dipper went out of his way for her while it she didn't return it at times. However, as we know, the show was supposed to have gone on longer as it is and perhaps they just didn't have time to flesh all that out.

Anywho, that's just my silly, delirious opinion.
[Image: eM0FPqU.gif]
Reply
#18
There are no logical excuses for Mabel, Stanley and Wendy's actions, as far as I can see.
"Ooh, ooh, what kind of message? A song? A summons? Wait, I know! A death threat written on the back of an Argonian concubine! Those are my favorites." -Sheogorath

[Image: attachment.php?thumbnail=1616]
Reply
#19
@MechanicalDipper I totally agree, though it's always interesting to hear arguments from the other side. And with Dipper going out of his way for Mabel sometimes, imo that's very much about his protectiveness of her, which I think ties in very well with what I've previously said about the interesting use of gender roles in the twins' sibling dynamic.

(12-22-2016, 07:12 AM)AwesomeDude1 Wrote: Yes it was a mistake, but it caused the apocalypse. She should have felt bad and sorry about it. Plus Dipper thought the rift cracked in the backpack and the show never shows him learning the truth.

Does she not immediately feel bad, sorry, and regretful the moment she realizes Blendin' is actually Bill?

(12-22-2016, 11:01 PM)MysteryMan618 Wrote: Are we ever going to see Dipper learn the truth or no?

And with Dipper never learning the truth — how is that related to Mabel's selfishness? Imo that tells us a lot about Dipper's priorities, but not really anything about Mabel.

In the series his first concern is Mabel's wellbeing, and his second is how to deal with the apocalypse. He doesn't waste time figuring out how the rift cracked, probably because that would be of no use in the situation — it cracked and instead of wasting time trying to figure out why, he goes on to deal with the bigger problems at hand. Similarly, Mabel doesn't investigate how Bill possessed Dipper in Sock Opera. Instead of interrogating Dipper as to why he is a sock puppet, she quickly accepts the reality of the situation and helps him.

The twins, unlike the fandom, don't police each other's choices and behavior all that much. And the more I think about it, the more it seems The Last Mabelcorn might have been the writers' response to the fandom's zealous policing of Mabel's morality — where Celestabellebethabelle's criticisms represent the fandom's complaints, and the writers respond by showing how Mabel's intentions are pure and that morality is relative. If anybody would like to discuss this further though, that would be awesome.
Reply
#20
That's not good writing though. Responding to haters.
[Image: mabel_pines_fan_button_by_requestbuttons-d5j5abu.png]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)