If Alex Hirsch starts now, he could do a Gravity Falls movie set in the summer of 2018 (which by then would be present day) in which Dipper and Mabel have just finished high school and face all the mental/emotional drama of becoming adults and leaving their old lives behind.

Thus far we've had:
— Tiny Peridot
— Pint-sized Peridot
— Pebbledot
— Peridette
— Mini-dot
— Peripie

Never really saw it that way myself, maybe because I always thought the angle they were going for would be to have each "enemy" Gem from the Homeworld eventually be won over to humanity - even Peridot. And just as with Lapis before (and perhaps even Jasper later) that may end up becoming the case.

Actually, scrap my idea. I want to see that be the reason instead ^^

Something just occurred to me upon seeing pint-sized Peridot (speaking of which, dawwww!) most of the Gems when in an unfused form tend to be really short. Ruby and Sapphire are about the same height as Steven. Peridot, Lapis, and Amethyst are each just slightly taller than him.

No! =D

The dictionary has nothing to do with it. Utilitarian describes a school of ethical philosophy that's existed for over two centuries. Yet I've seen people writing that such-and-such was done for "utilitarian rather than ethical reasons" because of this odd use of the term to mean "purely functional/practical with no…

"Utilitarian" means maximising well-being for the greatest number. Obviously creating things of aesthetic value is in line with utilitarianism.

As someone with a specific type of autism - Asperger syndrome - Pearl couldn't possibily be more of an exemplar of AS. The problem with teasing out autism in characters is there's no one single form of it that ticks all boxes. It's a spectrum.

I think fusion is less a metaphor for sex in the purely carnal sense (although it certainly has those undertones) and more about the mental/affective connection between people that happens *through* sex.

Pearl's flaws that revolve around her (queer) love and longings - jealousy, obsessiveness - are portrayed as just that, flaws. In Twilight those character traits are portrayed in a positive light as something to be actively cultivated in a relationship. So a comparison between the two isn't remotely fair.

Idea: In the several thousand years since the Crystal Gems have been to the homeworld, new classes of Gems have been created to administer what's become an increasingly bureaucratic and authoritarian society. Peridot of is one of these new Gem types that the Crystal Gems don't recognise.

Too soon …
That's why.
He killed them all … O_O

Does anyone else sense that they're drawing a direct analogue between Steven/Lapis and Rose/Pearl? Especially given the similar "why won't you let me do this for you?" sentiments they both express. Given what Steven did - saved Lapis from an ordeal and gave her a sense of belonging every side seemed to be denying her…

The leader of the snake-people.
Ronaldo was on to something.

This may be reaching a bit, but I think Garnet's "I think you're just mad cause you're single" can be interpreted as being less about being in a romantic relationship specifically and more embodying the show's ethos of love/communality versus rugged individualism/domination (represented by Jasper).

But remember how Pearl reacted when Steven stressed that he wanted Connie to fight WITH him as an equal instead of "for" him as a vassal? She accidentally said Rose's name instead of Steven's. Strongly indicating that she must have had identical arguments with Rose over the same issue, with Rose strongly disagreeing…

The one thing that seems to hint that it was mutual was Rose's line "MY Pearl" in Rose's Scabbard. That's generally something one only says to lovers or very close family members.

Observation: I like how they're hinting at a closer relationship developing between Connie and Pearl, especially how this episode shows that Pearl clearly sees a lot of herself in the young Connie (notice the reaction to her speech at the beginning) and in particular how Connie and Steven's bond mirrors the one she…

Finally, something for kids that clearly and explicitly states "love at first sight doesn't exist". Love at first sight is actually a pretty toxic idea when you think about it, leading many people who absorb the idea as kids to develop a somewhat distorted picture of what romantic love should be.