I'm always shocked by how many people think it's fair to compare the first season of Korra, 10 episodes of what they thought might be their only season of the show, to the entirety of ATLA. Since I'm not going to reply to everyone individually, here's a few people in this very topic who seem to be making that mistake but they're obviously free to defend themselves and I encourage them to do so if they see this: Wars0ngGlutch WinyPit RealMattMilan And some others who had shorter posts and I'm less sure of what they were trying to say. If you compare the first 10 episodes of Korra to the first 10 of TLA with [b]no exterior considerations[/b], it's really not close at all: Korra is better. But that doesn't say anything about the two against each other, because the first 10 of TLA were setting up what was always expected to be a full-length, planned out story about several particular characters. The exterior considerations matter a hell of a lot. Thus I don't think it's a very fair comparison at this point in time. I will say this, though: Season 1 of Korra impressed me a lot. I think it has the potential to exceed TLA handily, and I loved TLA to death. (This hardly needs saying but there's a brigade of TLA fans out there that will never accept Korra as a superior sequel no matter how good the show gets for the next few seasons. It's like how if the Hobbit trilogy was the greatest film trilogy in history there would still be a number of fans who would say LOTR was way better.)