Steven Universe

220 posts in this topic

Posted

It just insults the various legacies and energies attached to the various crystals. 

pheonix561 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You're my favorite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm trying to let my wrist rest today since I sprained it again, but here I am typing at my keyboard about SU. Spoilered for spoilers.

 

Here's a long post somebody posted on tumblr talking about the possible nature of life as a gemstone:

 


People have already theorized that more than one being exists for each gemstone; meaning, there are many pearls, many amethysts, many rubies and sapphires, etc.

 

If only ONE being existed for each kind of gemstone, even if there are thousands of kinds, Homeworld would barely have enough hands to run the empire, let alone manage the implied-hundreds of conquered planets. There would HAVE to be more than one gem for each gemstone. (Not to mention for the gem population to be large enough that the Crystal Gems are still cleaning up corrupted gems centuries later.)

 

But that’s not what I’m talking about. What I wonder is, how do you think gem society would TREAT these copies? What caught my attention the most was Rose Quartz’s line in Lion 3: Straight to Video.

 

B193NeC.png

 

“This world is full of so many possibilities.
Each living thing has an entirely unique experience.
The sights they see, the sounds they hear. The lives they live are so complicated, and so simple.”

 

Rose is awestruck at the idea that a group of living creatures can have unique lives – that they experience new sights and sounds different from anyone else.

 

What I theorize is that gems are considered interchangeable with others of their “breed,” and made to be nearly identical to each other. Of course they would have different memories and slightly differing personalities based on their experiences, but you could destroy an Emerald and fill that position with another Emerald and hardly notice. Peridots are always weak technicians who adhere to the rules, Jaspers are always military brutes, Lapis Lazulis always control water. Every gem, when cut, has a future already etched in stone, members of different gem breeds essentially sharing the same life as others of their breed. If they DON’T act exactly like they are grown to, then there is something wrong with them.

 

That isn’t to say gems CAN’T be different, or want different things, (the Crystal Gems and Rose’s rebellion being the case and point), but most gems are loyal to Homeworld or are too afraid/too ignorant to even think about moving from their place in society.

 

This is why Rose Quartz would be fascinated that humans are all born different and can choose their own life.

 

hFzTU3Q.png

 

This is also why Jasper would call Pearl “some lost, defective Pearl” in The Arrival, because she chose to rebel with Rose Quartz instead of staying loyal to her pre-set duties. She is defective because she didn’t obey the calling Homeworld had chosen for pearls. 

 

It could also give Peridot’s statement a little more context, while still being funny. 

 

26sHoAE.png

 

“There appears to be an infestation of ‘Stevens’ in the Kindergarten.”

“And how many more ‘Stevens’ are present in this area?”

 

If this theory is correct and gems are all made to be the same, Peridot might have assumed other species were similar, with “Stevens” being a “kind” which is why she lumped him into a group. Then again she specifically mentioned humans as a singular species instead of ‘stevens’ being a breed of humans, so this might be reaching.

 

If this is correct it would also make fusions more complicated. Are there non-fusion Opals, Garnets, Alexandrites, Sugilites and Malachites naturally in gemkind? Could a singular gem we know of (like an Amethyst or a Pearl) be a fusion of two gems? Could you take ANY Sapphire and ANY Ruby and mush them together to make the same Garnet or would the fusions differ?

 

The only way we’d know if this theory holds water is if one of the casts meets a counterpart gem. What do you guys think?



Here's the tumblr page source for all of that by the way.

 

This seems to me like one of those things thats less a "theory" and more a "definitely probably true" thing. Like, very heavily hinted at, but not confirmed yet.

Anyways, what interests me about this theory is that it pointed out to me the gems aren't actually calling each other by their names; they're calling each other the equivilant of "boy" or "girl," or maybe "black," "white," "asian," etc. It's kind of difficult coming up with a proper analogy for the gems addressing each other by their gemstone names since it doesn't really translate well into typical human life, but I hope you see what I'm trying to get at. It kind of makes me wonder if the gems will ever actually pick names of their own. Like maybe a gem gives themselves a human name instead of just calling each other "Private, Sargeant, Colonel," or "Fireman, Policeman, Doctor." Yeah, there's still no easy translation, but I still wonder if the gems will ever experiment with individuality. I mean, maybe that's what Rose was doing when she turned into Steven or whatever? I wonder who between Rose and Greg came up with the name Steven, and why.

Sahaqiel likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Steven is named after/based on a younger version of Rebecca Sugar's brother, Steven Sugar, who is also the lead background artist on the show.

 

in response:

Phanta actually told me that every time a gemstone reforms itself (say, via fusion or after being "poofed") their outfits change. Pearl's outfit has been different since early in S1 and Opal's changed after reforming a second time. Garnet's re-fusion also gave her a clothes change.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if this theory was correct, and if it's true then the pool of available castes is even lower for individuals because some gemstones are fusions, and fusions of fusions, etc. Perhaps those fusions can exist individually too, except more stylized to one person? For example, Garnet. I might think there are individual Garnets that aren't fusions because Garnet only has two arms as opposed to four from being a fusion of two gems. All the fusions we've seen other than Garnet and Stevonnie have more than one set of limbs. And maybe it's possible for two weak gems to fuse into a Pearl, or a Rose Quartz. Gems' strengths are vaguely represented by their size, and Rose Quartz IS gigantic, so who's to say a Quartz and idk, a Ruby, could fuse into one? Alternatively, who's to say there couldn't be an Alexandrite that's Pearl's height and only has one set of limbs?

 

On that topic if it's true, I would think that perhaps their births do insert them into castes, but maybe different individual gems could come in different shapes and sizes, as most real gemstones do. There could be a Pearl who is malformed and small (more akin to Amethyst) but there could be another Amethyst that is large and has a completely different style from our Amethyst. The castes determining their personalities and what their jobs are could still be true. Garnet doesn't really seem much like Ruby or Sapphire from what we've seen. She's a good blend but still retains a lot of individuality, so maybe Garnets naturally act somewhat like our Garnet.

Pizzza likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I cant stop wondering why Pearl and Peridot feature the same exact gem location (their foreheads). 

 

This isnt related to the canon, but i wish they made the gem locations related to Chakra points. It'd be an interesting concept that could have easily been incorporated along side gem mythology. Like, what if (going with Pheo's post) there were Pearls with pearls in their stomach ala Rose/Steven... on Second thought, they probably wouldn't be able to do that, with the Root Chakra and all. But how cool would it be to see a Gem with their stone in the place where humans have their genitals. That'd be fun!

chakra_chart.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Actually, I remember hearing back when steven universe first came out a few years ago that the chakra was actually the basis for where the gems were placed on the characters? I don't know how true it is, but here's a post that was made way back in november of 2013 that makes some interesting arguments, all of which I feel still hold up a year and a half later. Not spoilered because not spoilery, all of this information you find out in episode one:

0KWBXKZ.jpg

RmSNv1R.jpg

 

PnwKxJ7.jpg

 

rS4b28X.jpg

tBKD7gv.jpg

8orshwD.jpg

I16Ja5X.jpg

VHqk9Ez.jpg
 


You know what’s fun? Being an English major and a cartoon fan.

 

I could go on, but I won’t.

 

EDIT: Small addition before people start taking this the wrong way. It would be incorrect to say that gender does not play into this. The fact that Steven is a boy among women does add to his being a disruptive force to their status quo. This does NOT make him representative of all men, as if to say no woman would have a complete personality without a man. He’s hardly a symbol of traditional masculinity anyway; nor the Gems traditional femininity.  Symbols are simple, these characters are not, that’s the point.

 

Additionally, outside of Steven, the Gems seem to only interact with monsters or each other. He brings out their humanity because he’s the most human person they talk to.

 

Thanks peeps for pointing out the hole in my argument.

 

 

On the one hand I'd like to say this guy is thinking a bit too hard about the show, but on the other hand, seeing as this argument is based off of intel that was so old they didn't even have canon confirmation that rose's gem was rose quartz (even though it was obvious), and yet still manages to hold up years later, makes me think he has a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

There are a few things that discredit that though, like that the third-eye chakra point is for thought and perception. If that's true, it's entirely inconsistent with the characters. Garnet literally has a third eye and has heightened perception (future vision). Garnet isn't a healer, Rose was, and she doesn't have particularly strong regenerative capabilities like Amethyst. Amethyst's is pretty much spot on though. I think their character dynamic may have been decided on a loose psychology, but overall I think they're just supposed to balance each other out, so naturally that dynamic came out of it. Steven is definitely the disruptor here though. He's there to unite them above their sense of camaraderie, as someone they need to protect and teach, but also there to give them a human perspective so they can be suitable protectors of the earth and understand humans better, especially with Rose gone.

 

I think purely from that Pearl's gem is on the third-eye position that they probably didn't really think of the chakra points, or if they did, they did so loosely, because it's entirely inconsistent with Garnet as I mentioned before. But I'm sure they researched into the birthstones and came up with personalities they imagined they represent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

 

Not all of these "facts" are great but you should check them out anyway.

Pizzza, Teto and Sahaqiel like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That was cute. Thanks for the share!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Amethyst growing her hair out because she liked Greg's only deepens the sex scandal.

 

This series is hilarious.

 

But yeah some of these are more spoilers than trivia. I would have liked it if they also mentioned that the statue over their house is a fusion between all of them. Four sets of arms and huge curly hair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The temple being a statue of all the crystal gems fused ISN'T a fact. While it may be true, it has yet to be confirmed. So yeah, that's a pretty good reason not to include it in a "fact" video.

Also, still not buying into that whole sex scandal thing. Especially since word of God says it isn't true...

 

(Wont let me post the images here for some reason, so here is a link. Scroll down for the tweets by one of the SU staff)

http://steven-universe.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:51517

Cascade likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I talked about it with kaffles and we both pretty much decided that it's probably for PR reasons, and we're not entirely sure if this guy would even have a say. I don't see why it couldn't have happened since

 

season 2 spoiler

 

Sour Cream was in all likeliness literally conceived as Greg was performing in the flashback episode.

 

The show has a history of inserting things that are subtle enough for children to not understand and to retain plausible deniability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

yeah I don't think it was a sex thing saha. I thought about it and am agreeing with word of god on this. Your theory doesn't mesh with Amethyst's personality really


To put it another way, I think Amethyst would me more likely to take out her anger on Greg by tormenting him than she would cope with her sadness by having sex with him while shapeshifted as Rose. You were probably just thinking about the "I've seen your junk" joke too much

Pizzza likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yeah. I mean I can see how it would be viewed that way, but so far as greg cheating on rose with amethyst? I mean if anything while I was watching that episode I thought maybe it was going to be something more like greg and amethyst getting together after steven was born, and the episode would talk about one parent trying to date again after their so dies. I mean I haven't seen you mention the theory itself anywhere in this thread, but I'm assuming that's what you're getting at. Greg does not strike me as the type to cheat. Them just being friends makes a lot more sense.

Plus, I doubt Cartoon Network would outwardly deny a fact like that for PR reasons. It seems much more to me like they'd just explore it more in the SU comics, like what they did with princess bubblegum and marceline the vampire queen being lesbians, so they could still have it be canon without bothering parents. If the series creators come out and explicitly say "they were just friends," then that's that.

Pizzza and T1g like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yeah I think you just want it to be more risky than it is. And it's not as if the story doesn't make sense without your version of "filling in the gaps". In fact, ALL things considered (both canon and in relation to real life/Cartoon Network/Word of God/etc), your ideas would be the most far-fetched. I mean if it's between the established canon and your theory, established canon just makes more sense.

 

The show is intended to be positive. Super pro-feminist, if nothing else. And while it realistically depicts the characters' flaws, as far as a cartoon like this can, I don't think they'd even want to go as far as to say Greg had sex with a doppelganger of his late wife + Amethyst is a SUPER sexual deviant. Just doesn't fit...

 

fun fact though, X-Men did almost this exact same scenario a while back. Cyclops was having sex with Jean Grey when, all of a sudden, Jean walks in on them having sex. Turns out, Emma Frost, a very powerful psychic, manipulated Cyclops' mind to think he was puppying Jean, when actually he was sharing his bed with her (Emma).

enhanced-buzz-17378-1385500141-7.jpg

Pretty puppyed up. But then again, so is X-Men. Really can't say the same about SU.

T1g likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.