Animation Source Forums

I myself am insecure and even though it's really hard to deal with, in and of itself, I don't believe it's that much of a flaw. Nothing happens to anyone else if you have insecurity. And we're not saying like majoy anger issues. Just minor would be good enough, But honestly? The outcast thing is kinda old. People have been using that as a 'flaw' for a really long times. Decades possibly. Therefore, it may be for that very reason why we don't really call it a flaw anymore. It's too common, therefore it can't really be classified as a flaw.

And this is coming from a person who is insecure herself. So please don't go bashing me telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. Cause trust me, I DO. And I have BOTH ends of that. Not only am I insecure, but I also have major anger issues with those I can talk to. And which is more of a flaw? The anger. Reasons? Well for one thing, being angry, in the moment, you cannot really be certain who you're hurting with your words/actions. Insecurity is just a flaw for you. And for you only. Not really for anyone else. Anger on the other hand can be a flaw about you towards everyone. Think about it. If it weren't for the fact the movie was almost entirely following Balto, would we really know if he was insecure or not? Sure we'd think he's prolly a little shy, but c'mon. You can't tell that about someone at first glance. You honestly can't.

Someone could look super happy on the outside but be a total wreck on the inside. For the flip version, someone could be a total wreck on the outside, but really they have an awesome disposition. They're just not sure how to show it.

And you do realize that the movie is set in the 1920s, don't you? Long before this supposed revision of insecurity from a "flaw" into some common trait. And who is this "we" you are referring to? Seems to me that several people in here do indeed identify insecurity as a flaw. Because that is still precisely how it is viewed by the layman in society.


So what training in behavioral and social psychology do you have? Or can you cite psychological studies which can reinforce your statement?


Well, er, since the movie's title bears the character's name, and since he is the protagonist of the story, I should think that the answer is obvious. If the movie weren't focused so heavily upon Balto, not only would it have a different title, but there would be some other protagonist, and we would be discussing his or her strengths and weaknesses. And in a cartoon movie, in which children are the primary target audience, character development is not going to be overly complex or take several scenes to reveal. Which is why we can actually get a pretty accurate read on the Balto character fairly quickly. Honestly.

1) Set in the 1920s or not, this movie was made in the 1990s. You cannot ignore that simple fact.

2) If you didn't read, I know it from my experience. And why would I even need proof? I KNOW it cause I LIVE with it EVERYDAY. I don't think I really need proof for my opinions and for my beliefs. I'm trying to say my standpoint. In no way am I trying to prove my point as everyone's. I'm trying to prove it as mine. And the we? It comes from the fact that lots of people who deal with it probably feel the same way. Maybe not all, but I know I do not stand alone with this opinion. In fact, I have friends who feel the same.

3) I am trying to say if the movie wasn't as focused on Balto. Not that is was. And if in fact it wasn't, think about how much we'd sit there trying to figure out his flaw. We might not come up with one.

When it was made is irrelevant. The setting is the key. Even in a movie (cartoon or live action) that is only "based" upon a true story, the writers try to stick to the time as much as possible. What sense would it make to have anthropomorphic animals and/or people from one time acting like those from the time in which the movie is made?


And I respect your situation, and sympathize. But that does not change the fact that you do not hold a degree in psychology, psychiatry, psychotherapy, or social sciences. Therefore, simply being saddled with emotional or psychological problems does not make you a learned authority on them, including ones from which you might not specifically suffer.

1) It doesn't matter what time it was set in. With this particular movie, it's based off a real life dog. They had no need to make the dog half wolf. But the did. You never know what the real dog's personality was. And even if you did, the dog's emotions probably weren't like normal people's. They probably don't ever feel the emotion of insecurity. Therefore, it's not really important when it took place when comparing it to the personality.

2) I don't think anyone here has a degree like that. I DO go to the phycologist, but I'd never want to study it for a lifetime. And I'll bet almost no one on here has a degree in that study here. Maybe one or two. Possibly even three. But most of the percentage of users on here are either teenagers or fairly young adults. And that means they're either in: middle school, high school, or college. Therefore, more than half of AS users prolly haven't even started jobs yet. So that statement isn't exactly valid in every way.

It does within the context of your earlier statement that "...the outcast thing is kinda old. People have been using that as a 'flaw' for a really long times. Decades possibly. Therefore, it may be for that very reason why we don't really call it a flaw anymore. It's too common, therefore it can't really be classified as a flaw." Within that context, it is quite important when it took place. Even by your own statement, people did view it as a flaw "for a long time"...which infers that during the real Balto's time they did as well. Quite important, and quite relevant.


It is a valid statement if your previous statements (which I quoted in my original reply to you). You paint yourself as an expert. You are someone who may be experiencing emotional turmoil (no matter its diagnosis), but you are not qualified to make judgements about what others feel or know about character flaws, as you did in the statements I quoted.

I didn't like quite how invincable Balto was. I think the movie could have benefited largly from some suspense, applied like it was in White Fang. (I believe I sited Jack London in my last post)

Well let's expand on that then. Quick tempered how, exactly? What would set him off? Who would make him angry? If you look at the movie, he IS angry at Steele, to the point of trying to fight him instead of listening to Boris, who is telling him to just back away. Does that qualify as having a temper? If not, what does?

When does this quick temper show up, under what circumstances? Does he get mad at Jenna? At Boris? At Rosy? Or is it just Steele that would set him off? Because Steele already makes him angry so you're not really gaining anything there.

Just making a character more quick tempered does not make it a better character, and it doesn't add anything to a story unless you've really thought his motivations through, and that's what I think is missing here - the character's motivation. In the movie it's easy to see what Balto's motivations are. He wants to go get the medicine because he cares about Rosy, because he cares about Jenna. He lets Steele beat him up when he finds them on the mountain because his only motivation at that time is to get the medicine back to the town (and keep his promise to Jenna), not to fight Steele.

He is motivated to do all this because Jenna has shown an interest in him despite his insecurities, and he's grateful for it. It doesn't hurt that she is beautiful and kind to him either. So where does this quick temper fit into this scenario? Why would he be angry at anything besides Steele (who he is already angry with)? And more importantly, how would a quick temper make it a more interesting story?

If you have Balto snapping at other characters because he has a quick temper, that would estrange him from those characters and there's still no good reason for it. You would have a movie about a half wolf with a temper where nothing happens because nobody wants to talk to him.

I understand that some of you guys think the movie is boring because there isn't enough angst or fighting or whatever, but that doesn't mean you can add those things and it will be a better movie. It won't. In Balto they did a good job of defining Balto's character flaws and creating conflict and motivation based on them. Even just adding "a quick temper" would throw that all out of balance. It is possible to change Balto's character like that, but you would also have to change everything else in the story. All his motivations would change, as would his relationships with the other characters.

Balto is humble, modest and friendly - you can't just add a quick temper to that. It's a contradiction. People who are easy to anger are generally not humble or modest at all, and the Balto storyline would not work with a character like that. That's why I suggested the fan fiction, if somebody wants to try it - write Balto with a quick temper like that, and then visualize how the other characters would realistically react to that behavior.

@ JerseyCaptain:

I don't think you're really listening to my comments very much. I am trying to say:

1) It doesn't matter when it was set because the real life Balto, you can never be sure if the dog himself was insecure. The movie was made in the 1990s, therefore, the personality of Balto was developed during that time as well.

2) I never, in any way, said I knew more than anyone here. In fact, I even stated plainly that others probably thought differently than me.

Moki - let's move on, 'kay?

Say whatever you want, Xaqtly, I still think that his insecurities is a very poor flaw. And no matter what you say that's how my opinion will stay.

Well, characters have had worse flaws then just being themselves and being insecure.

And Balto has been shown to have a temper like in the scene in the alley where Steele was taunting him. Balto controlled it but it's clear that his character does harbor some negative emotions and is far from perfect.