- This topic has 39 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
There’s a really great analysis I once read that OUAT is more concerned with redemption as opposed to justice. It’s why a lot of the misdeed the villains have done get largely ignored after the fact. It’s why none of the villains had to face their victims in the Underworld but instead had their hero status/reformed status reemphasized (except Rumple of course). It’s why no one talks about what Zelena did to Robin or what Regina did to Graham or Hook’s collection of kills. Bringing these up would remind the audience that the villains have done terrible (really, terrible) things but instead the show wants us to see them as redeemed even if they haven’t had to face any sort of cosmic justice.
Again, if you believe justice and redemption are mutually exclusive or must work together will depend on your world perspective.
[adrotate group="5"]"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Eh hem….Rape sand on Guinevere that never actually was resolved….eh hem.
no one has ever really confronted Regina on her repeatedly raping Graham eithet. Zelena and Robin was treated fairly lightly as well. And of course no one has even mentioned the gwen thing to the heroes.
It’s up to each individual if that moral is okay
This. For me personally, i havent seen anything in OUAT that i would consider far too much for younger children. I dont think young kids would be able to really follow along with the story but i can name many other shows (Buffy, Angel,Charmed, etc( that featured far more bad words, gore, and things of a sexual nature than ouat and lord knows many youngsters wqtched those shows and turned out okay. *points to self* Well…we turned out fine, maybe.
"I could have the giant duck as my steed!" --Daniel Radcliffe
Keeper Of Tamara's Taser , Jafar's Staff, Kitsis’s Glasses , Ariel’s Tail, Dopey's Hat , Peter Pan’s Shadow, Outfit, & Pied Cloak,Red Queen's Castle, White Rabbit's Power To World Hop, Zelena's BroomStick, & ALL MAGICI’m actually wondering if this stuff is more disquieting to me as an adult because I now understand why these plots, stories, actions should rub me the wrong way— if I was, say, 10 instead of 30 I don’t know that I’d get the implications of Arthur’s roofie on Gwen. But that’s @nevermore whole point about how and why OUAT is PG–proceed with caution if you have young children, you may have to explain some things.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"I think the reason why OUAT is still labeled “a family show”, despite the PG rating, is because PG is so commonly seen as family friendly content in this day and age. Once upon a time (no pun intended), PG actually meant something. Just look at any PG rated films released during the 80s. Now the majority of family films are labeled PG. Even films such as Frozen, Inside Out, Zootopia, Finding Dory, and the upcoming film Moana are rated PG. This video by the Nostalgia Critic goes even more in-depth over this topic:
if I was, say, 10 instead of 30 I don’t know that I’d get the implications of Arthur’s roofie on Gwen.
Agreed. You could probably make it a “teaching moment” to an extent if you watch it with a younger family member. But come to think of it, I would also not underestimate kids, to paraphrase @TheWatcher. I used to watch OUAT with my niece, who was a late-pre-teen when she started. And she eventually “grew out” of OUAT because, essentially, she felt the show was wrapped up in romanticizing bullies (that was right around when Hook came to prominence).
This is a sample of one, but I often feel like kids are actually more attuned to and have stakes in the question of justice, fairness, and retribution. It’s really adults who are more concerned with redemption and forgiveness. In this sense I do think OUAT is more aimed at an adult viewership.
(First let me just say sorry for rambling a bit in this post. I had a hard time explaining my thoughts here, but I hope you get my meaning)
Okay, if we could get into the topic of the moral of the killings and the redeemed villains a bit, because Im curious to know how you guys would have liked the show to address these things?
Let me just stick to the two main villains, who are also redeemed or partially redeemed (even if this is back tracked again) Rumple and Regina. They are factually mass murderers and have both taken the lives of probably 100s of people in the Enchanted Forest. They are (most likely both) rapists. They are abductors. They have even killed children (Regina let her soldiers wipe out a village, so there would have been some there. So these acts are basically the most vile things, any human being could ever do. If these things happened in real life, I think we all agree that such a person would and should be locked up, in some way shape or form, for the rest of their lives.
But how should a show like Once deal with it? They could have locked them both up at the end of season 1 and we could have had a complete different show. Either one which would have taken place inside a jail cell, or one without the two main characters present. The latter would have been a bummer.. The first would have just been different.
OUAT is more concerned with redemption as opposed to justice. It’s why a lot of the misdeed the villains have done get largely ignored after the fact. It’s why none of the villains had to face their victims in the Underworld but instead had their hero status/reformed status reemphasized Quote
RG –exactly my point here. The show isn’t about justice for the violent act, but about the human behind the act.
The shows’ creators chose to make these two villains as vile as they could possibly be. Now we can discuss if that was needed, or if they could have mellowed them down a bit, but as I understand it, they did that because of how iconic the Evil Queen and the Rumpelstitzkin characters are to the fairytale universe. It wouldnt have been as great to have a mellow Evil Queen or Rumple.
And then they needed to try and show them as humans and to give them redeeming qualities. Im not saying there isn’t some kind of glitch in this choice, because when you strip away all the ‘things’ and just look the acts of violence and then look at where our villains are now, there is definitely a glitch… but I don’t see how they could have told the same story, that they chose to try to tell, without sort of “forgetting” the violent acts, or pushing those of to the background.
I feel that the show has pushed them so far off into the background, that they are essentially meaningless to the moral of the show. When we think of Regina and Rumple in Storybrook- the show is not showing us mass murderers,, we are shown people who have made wrong choices and thereby hurt other people, but not mass murderers. Not that that is not what they are.. But again, those acts are pushed to the background, so much so, that they become pointless. This, I feel, is not the show condoning mass murder ((I mean of course its not, they aint that crazy)) It’s the shows way of trying to put these iconic villains in a positive story and make them human..
Its one way of doing it.. And had they chosen another way. Granted- what had possibly been a more rational way .. We would have a completely different show. Had the show not pushed the acts of violence into the background, they could not be telling this same story of these same villains working with- and creating loving bonds with the heroes. We would not have seen a show, where the villains and heroes had become friends and family to each other. And I kinda like that they are that now.
So here we are- We have these two major iconic villains- Who we know have done really bad things.. But- We want them to become human and we want the heroes to forgive them and take them in as part of their family.. How are we gonna do that? That’s what I imagine the shows’ creators asked themselves at the beginning of writing this show. And we are seeing their answer. What is yours?
Im asking this because, every time a topic like this comes up. I think to myself- Why are people looking at it like that? To me its like you are looking at it through the lens of the real word. And it is just a tvshow afterall.
Like I said previously, I don’t think kids, and other viewers, will take away a bad moral from this show.. what they will take away, isn’t that mass murder can be swept under the carpet. They will take away -Family bonds, Friendships and Forgiveness.
But how do you guys feel they should have done it?
But how do you guys feel they should have done it?
I think the approach they’ve taken with Regina provides a good template, although there are there are things they could have done better.
What I like about Regina’s redemption is that it has been protracted and included multiple elements such as: Regina changing into a better person, Regina apologising sincerely, Regina risking her life to help her former victims, Regina undergoing suffering which some may view as karmic retribution for past misdeeds. It’s also been made clear through dialog that the other characters haven’t forgotten Regina’s crimes.
There are however, a few things that haven’t been adequately acknowledged, which I feel are important – Regina’s rape and murder of Graham, and Regina’s mass murder of peasants. I know that some people feel like Robin getting raped by Zelena was Regina’s karmic punishment for her treatment of Graham, but I would still like to see other characters call her out on it, or at least for her to express profound horror at her actions. Peasants are treated like dirt on this show, which really bothers me. They are rarely humanised and they almost never get justice. I’d like to see Regina acknowledge the many lives she’s ruined and also go out of her way to help the vulnerable and needy to whom she has no relation. This by no means constitutes justice, but it would at least be a small nod to the poor, faceless masses who were wiped out.
Generally speaking, and I’m not just talking in relation to Regina anymore, I would like to see the show emphasise the following messages:
– Mercy is important, but so is justice.
– Evil is made not born. However, everyone is responsible for their own actions. While pain and desperation can make vile actions understandable, it does not necessarily make them justifiable. There is a big difference.
– Bad deeds are not undone by good deeds. Nobody, especially victims, should feel obligated to forgive someone who has wronged them.
– The villain is not always a person. It can be, and often is, unjust laws and socio-political systems.
As for Rumple, I don’t think his redemption has been done anywhere near as well. But this is because, for narrative purposes, they’ve always needed Rumple to retain his shadiness.
Bad deeds are not undone by good deeds. Nobody, especially victims, should feel obligated to forgive someone who has wronged them.
This is basically my answer to Grimm’s questions. The show’s through line is, more or less, “these people used to do bad things. Now they do good things. Reward them!” Well, no. That’s not exactly how it works. You don’t get a good star for choosing not to kill people today even though it crossed your mind. There’s this idea in OUAT that a single good deed–no matter how major or minor–over turns all the bad without the victims of bad crimes getting a chance to voice their displeasure or to see any sort of atonement. So long as the “bad guy” is in good standing with the rest of the Scooby Gang, then all is right with world but this dismisses some truly heinous actions. Arthur and Gwen are a pretty good example of this. Regina and Rumple and Hook being confronted by their victims in the Underworld, having to look these victims in the eye and atone (and risk the possibility that forgiveness may NOT be granted) would have gone a long way for me. But of course this show is far too concerned with its plot to ever tackle heady topics like this.
And I’ve never said that they should be locked up; that would be ridiculous on a show who’s narrative focuses on a select few. The idea proposed is that redemption comes first and on this show that might be fine but redemption without justice or atonement to the victims seems pretty backwards.
To me its like you are looking at it through the lens of the real word. And it is just a tvshow afterall.
And this bothers me. You basically wrote several paragraphs extolling the virtues of the show’s themes of family, forgiveness and togetherness. All virtues that you find in the real world, but if we try to point out the vices and say how *those* are giving a bad message, suddenly “it’s just a TV show.” Those two sentiments seems pretty antithetical.
If you don’t believe that TV holds up a mirror to society and culture–shows us what we value, what we devalue, and how individuals interact with one another with regards to justice,ethics, race, age, sex, gender, sexual orientation, class ect–then we might be at a crossroads with OUAT and all TV because TV absolutely demonstrates and subverts cultural expectation, either for good or for ill.
I also think it’s really important to note that the dichotomy of virtue vs vice is a false one. OUAT need not be one or the other. It can be a show about family and hope and forgiveness where bad guys get redeemed and *still* have some pretty questionable moral and ethical narrative points about justice and ethics.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"– The villain is not always a person. It can be, and often is, unjust laws and socio-political systems.
This exactly. It’s funny how Season 1 did tackle that, to some extent, with Rumple’s storyline, with King George, and with the Dwarves/Fairies. But then the socio-political commentary that used to be quite interesting got totally eviscerated in favor of just staggering levels of “benevolent” classism, sexism, and racism. I attribute this to JJ Abrams’s influence wearing off.
Sciencevsmagic– I can definitely see what you are saying. And I agree, those would all be really good moral lessons. They also would have potential for great story telling. However, I still feel that that would have made a very different show than the one we see. We could not have our main characters- villains or heroes in these same situations, as they are in now, if they had put so much emphasis on said evil acts. (Unless it had been, as Rumplesgirl suggested, a scene of a meeting with some of their victims in the underworld) They could have done that.
But they chose to push it into the background as much as possible. To use metaphoric language (which I often do to explain myself, sorry about that) They put a veil over those evil acts, so that we don’t see much of them,, they are not spoken about in too many details, so that they don’t become an important or bright color in the picture they are painting of our main villains. We see those colors but they are veiled so much so, that all the other colors stand out more. This makes those evil acts less important to the story and also less important and less visible to the viewer. The average viewer will not see or think too much about those evil acts and therefor will not take them into consideration when judging, or taking away, what morals they are showing us..
But I guess it’s also a matter of how much you are willing to forgive the writers and creators for, as a viewer I mean. As I said, there are glitches in the storytelling, but I forgive those because I like what they are showing us and I enjoy seeing the characters in the situations the writers put them in.
quote Rumplegirl “And this bothers me. You basically wrote several paragraphs extolling the virtues of the show’s themes of family, forgiveness and togetherness. All virtues that you find in the real world, but if we try to point out the vices and say how *those* are giving a bad message, suddenly “it’s just a TV show.” Those two sentiments seems pretty antithetical.
What I mean by that is, often I think people are taking the show way too seriously. That’s not meant as a judgement, you can take the show as seriously as you want. Im only saying that- For me, it would be taking it too seriously. So it was meant as a question, as I wonder why people look at it that way. Taking it seriously is what makes people see all these bad morals, I think. I don’t think the creators sat out thinking lets make this show, so we can teach the people some of these important moral lessons. I think they just wanted to make a fun show. And as I tried to say above- Yes the bad morals are there, if you look beyond the veil. But I don’t think the average viewer looks there,, that’s why this is not the main moral lessons that they will learn.
Of course the show, and any tv show, is a mirror or lens showing us some of our real world. I think I said that wrong. And if they didn’t, they would be really bad and boring tvshows.
The topic ‘What is Considered Morally Correct in Once Upon a Time: Let's Go Higher’ is closed to new replies.