Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 23:26 — 16.1MB)
Subscribe: RSS
GC13 and Ken discuss one of the giants of Steven Universe: Giant Woman. This one sits near the top of a lot of “best of” lists, and with good reason. It’s the episode that introduced us to fusion, and that ultra-powerful, stone-cold Betty: Opal.
There’s a lot to consider about this episode now that we’ve seen more of the series. Did Garnet bring the rock for Steven specifically because of her future vision? Was the giant bird representative of what happens when several of the same gem fuse? Now that Amethyst and Pearl are (hopefully) closer, could we see a two-armed Opal in the future?
Giant Woman is definitely one of the greats though, and so it was fun to finally reach #12 on the retro list.
Since it got brought up, make sure to check out our recent post about why you shouldn’t worry about Steven Universe’s future. The next time you see someone worried that the show might be cancelled, you let them know why everything’s going to be fine.
Finally: are you interested in joining the podcast team? We’re looking for a new member! Head here for information on how to apply. Applications need to be in by August 20, so hurry!
19 comments
Skip to comment form
That giant bird remains a huge mystery. What’s with all those bubbled whole gems inside of it? They don’t look like the gem shards that became the mini birds. What happened to them when the big bird disintegrated? It doesn’t seem as if they shattered to become the gem shards, but then where did they go? However, given the number of questions each monster of the week raised, I doubt we’ll learn the answer to this one.
i think of the reason we dont saw fusions before, maybe i am wrong about this.
is because fusion takes time to do, and with the others battle situations before, as far i remember, there was no time for using that, because they would be attacked.
But well, one of the gems could try to divert the attention to herself while the two do the thing.
I found it interesting that there were statues of fusions in the sea spire. At first I thought all gems were cool with fusion because of those statues, now I think those were made by the crystal gems and homeworld gems would destroy them if given the chance.
I hope we get to see more Opal soon! I am also curious about the episode coming up that was posted that might or might not have some Sadie and Lars for us again. Trying to keep it a spoiler free as possible for certain people on the podcast.
Since we have never seen it before what do you guys think would happen if two gems with the same placement fused together? Would the gems become one or would one go above the other?
I think the show creators confirmed that the Gems would just go beside eachother.
I mean, if the fusion were big enough, there’d be space for two small gems.
Author
It’s tough to guess. I assume that if Pearl and Peridot (with their gems in the same place) fused the gems would shunt each other off to the side (either just barely or by a lot) to retain symmetry of placement but not take up the same space. If two Jaspers fused though, I’d assume that the resulting fusion would still have just one gem and just be a bigger, better Jasper.
Of course I’m still looking forward to the day when we see examples of both situations. 🙂
The ascending piano as Opal fires her arrow reminds me of Kingdom Hearts.
Hey GC, why do you think their Gems also grow when they fuse? Like, Sardonyx’s Pearl on her head is like the size of Pearl’s whole head.
Author
Well there are two reasons I can think of. The Watsonian explanation is basically “magic”, since we know so little about how gems in general and fusion in particular works on a technical level. The Doylist answer is that they’d look weird with tiny gems, so they’re drawn with bigger ones.
Mr. Burnett says that fusions are drawn based on look cool (meaning Opal will probably always have four arms no matter how much Amethyst and Pearl improve their relationship, since she was coolest with four arms when they first designed her), so even though Watsonian thinking is more fun I’m inclined to go Doylist on this one and say that there’s no particular reason except for character design.
“Stevonnie definitely looks like a girl! There’s no way I think a character who might not be entirely a girl is cute. SHE definitely has to be a girl. no homo”
Stevonnie looks like a girl because she obviously looks (and is dressed) very feminine, not because of any insecurities over my sexual preferences that I may or may not have.
your definition of “very feminine” is obviously being influenced by your desire for stevonnie to be a girl with no ambiguity whatsoever. despite what rebecca and the crew has said about stevonnie using ‘they’ pronouns, you use “she” because you decided they look like a girl. you use the wrong pronouns and it’s a deliberate choice you are making. you have decided they are a girl because apparently you are the Decider of Gender. *slow clap*
I am literally the world’s leading expert on my own motives. If you want to disagree with my argument (I listed several ways in which her character design is femine), feel free. If you want to insist that you know what’s in my head, then this conversation won’t and can’t progress because of your absurd arrogance. Hopefully in the future you’ll better understand your own limitations, and learn how to engage in constructive debate and discussion.
I feel like this is the same person who got pissed that some people think Pearl/Rose isn’t a thing, and thought we were all “BIASED.”
Yo Ken, you know Matt Burnett confirmed Stevonnie uses they/them pronouns, right?
https://twitter.com/mcburnett/status/620637717731217408
Either you honestly missed that tidbit (which is doubtful because it’s a Crewniverse twitter + the info is on the wiki, too) or you’re just being a real condescending sack about this for no good reason.
And can we just not say shit like “obviously feminine”, especially in the context of a show like SU that makes a /point/ to defy and subvert hetero/cis-normative conventions? Seriously.
I never said anything about pronouns. I never said “She” was the correct pronoun for Stevonie, and I never said Stevonie identified as a woman or feminine. Gender is a artificial social construct, and is independent of self identification (or indeed even creator intent), society as a whole defines its bounds. Stevonie is clearly feminine by almost every relevant important standard (in the context of contemporary American culture) I can think of. Throughout this “discussion”, no one has provided a single counter example. What the creators intended is irrelevant, they simply failed in their implementation, as we said on the show. We should obviously respect whatever gender a person chooses to identify as, and so if Stevonie wants to be refereed to as “They”, then that’s appropriate. My use of “She” was not an intentional ideological push on my part, but simply me being used to referring to feminine looking people as “She”. It was a mistake, I will try not to repeat it (though I do think there are problems with using creator statements alone as canon but w/e), and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. With that said, the aggression I am getting here seems undue, my position isn’t that controversial. Stevonie does obviously look feminine, I know the show is trying to subvert hetero/cis-normative conventions, and they utterly failed in that regard with her character design. If someone disagrees then cool, make relevant points since that hasn’t happened yet.
Seriously, let the man think what he wants. I, in all honesty, am under the impression that Stevonnie is very feminine, too, as I believe any average person would. I stand by that statement, as well, but just because this is what I think doesn’t mean I’m not aware that others think differently about Stevonnie, nor am I disrespecting their beliefs, either.
It’s ironic. This is both of our positions, and yet the two people calling Ken out for those belifs (and potentially me) show blatant disrespect for said beliefs.
Hey guys,
Can we get an about page for your podcast? I’m looking for your music and credits, but I’m having trouble finding it.
the music we use is by James Roach https://www.youtube.com/user/jamesroachmusic/feed
other than that, I don’t think we have any other “credits”