- This topic has 39 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
However, I still feel that that would have made a very different show than the one we see.
Yes, IMO it would have been a better one!
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.
Yes, but that just means it would have been different, not necessarily worse. There are MANY different ways this could have been done, limited only by imagination. Here are a few possibilities in addition to @RG’s suggestion:
– Rumple describing to Henry how difficult life was for peasants back in the EF. You could substitute the Charmings, or Belle, or Regina for Rumple. It could be worked in organically as a dialogue initiated by Henry expressing the desire to be a hero in his storybook.
– A recurring character who is a champion of the peasants but who hates royalty (due to past experiences in the EF) and is constantly antagonising the Charmings and Regina. Robin Hood would have been perfect for this role, but they were only ever interesting in having him as Regina’s boyfriend. Bonus points if this character created trouble by using his/her wits instead of magic.
Emphasing things like the power imbalance back in their world would actually gain villains like Rumple and Cora more sympathy. It’s what made ‘Desperate Souls’ such compelling viewing.
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.
The problem is, the show and its messages will influence you whether you take it seriously or not. They will bypass your critical faculties and impact you on a subconcious level. This is why marketers pay such exorbitant amounts for advertisements. They know that mere exposure to certain images will increase your chances of buying their product, even if you don’t consciously pay any attention to the ad. Now, take this principle and apply it to something you have an emotional investment in – it’s going to exert an even more powerful influence. Exactly how much influence is impossible to determine, as it will affected by factors such as your personal beliefs, your social network, your age. But it will influence you (and everyone who watches) for sure. This is why a TV show is never “just a TV show”. Viewers are always passively absorbing the show’s messages without even realising it; they internalise them into their belief system and then go and act their beliefs out in the world.
[adrotate group="5"]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.
@sciencevsmagic already hit the nail on the head for a response to this, but I’ll give some examples of how bad morals will affect even your “average viewer” by which I assume you mean someone who is not interacting inside a fandom as you and I are. Everything is a conversation and beings because of a reaction to what the person is seeing on their screen. Here’s how this might go.
A viewer might see a character performing some sort of amoral act. Now while they might not pick up their laptop and write about why this is disquieting to them, they might–in this day and age:
–think “I don’t like what I’m seeing” and instead pickup their phone and flip through Facebook, thus ignoring what is happening on screen.
–Flip the channel until they think the scene in question as passed
–Decide that next week they are going to DVR the show instead of watching live so that they can Fast Forward through anything they don’t like
–Stop watching altogether
–Not like/retweet/reblog a post from the TV show on social media
–not discuss the show the next day around the proverbial watercooler
–if they are watching with someone, they might say “I can’t believe the show did that!” in a way that suggests anger instead of awe.
–stop buying any kind of merchandise like DVDs, apparel, ect
–will adopt the language being used in the show as part of their vernacular even if unintentional, up to and including slurs and words with negative connotations.
–in an extreme case, they might perform some sort of act because “I saw it on a TV show” (this is literally why some TV shows comes with a “do not attempt at home” warning).
–and finally, even something as simple as frowning and thinking “that’s wrong” or even “I don’t know how I feel about this.”
No one simply sits there and watches TV. We don’t turn off our brains when the tube goes on; you are constantly engaging with a show in a dialogue no matter how minor or major.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Grimmsistr wrote: 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.
Look, I don’t think you meant your comment in a negative way, @Grimmsistr — I think what you’re saying is that if you’re not willing to suspend disbelief and critical thinking, and just enjoy the ride, you might be missing the sheer lighthearted campy enjoyment of the experience… BUT. Your argument sits a bit uncomfortably with me. In part because it reminds me of how people will defend a sexist/classist/racist joke by saying “hey, it’s just a joke, why can’t you have a good time and not go all social justice warrior on us.” That’s a type of silencing technique. Now, I’m pretty sure this isn’t how you meant your comment, and I actually sympathize with your project of wanting to rescue and celebrate the enjoyable elements of OUAT. It’s optimistic. But I’d be cautious about doing it the way you’re suggesting it here. This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t also try to just enjoy the show — I get what you’re saying. But I don’t think assuming a normative viewing experience based on imputed intent to the show runners is the way to do that. It actually dismisses the different types of experiences people might be bringing to the table as they engage with a work of fiction. What feels like inconsequential, unrealistic camp to some people, for others might hit a string — intentionally or not — and their response might be different, and more negative.
Lets take a non-OUAT example. A slapstick comedy about bullying might feel hilarious and totally inconsequential to a person who has never experienced bullying him/herself, but might feel devastating or minimally cringe-worthy to someone who has. A bad slasher flick, not intended to be taken seriously at all because it’s all over the top might be enjoyable to some people, but viscerally disturbing to others, depending on your tolerance for on-screen gore. A romance story where one of the mains is very sexually aggressive might be “hot” for some people, and triggering for others. You get the picture.
Now, I’m not saying that this means that OUAT, being a family show, should just be the plot equivalent of boiled cabbage. I’m saying that they could address some of the big, interesting, difficult issues that they seem to want to get on the table in a way that is thoughtful. I might even disagree with their conclusions or messages, or they might leave the take away point open ended and contradictory — that would be fine. but if it’s done in a thoughtful, interesting way, then I wouldn’t mind. But this isn’t how they go about it these days. It’s just plot plot shiny plot plot drama etc
I might even disagree with their conclusions or messages, or they might leave the take away point open ended and contradictory — that would be fine. but if it’s done in a thoughtful, interesting way, then I wouldn’t mind. But this isn’t how they go about it these days. It’s just plot plot shiny plot plot drama etc
I really agree with this and I’ll give an Ouat example. I can’t stop thinking about some of the moral messages and themes found in episode 4, “Strange Case.” Particularly with regards to Mary and her situation trying to strandle the “Madonna/Whore” line in her restrictive society. I don’t particularly like the conclusion to Mary’s story which saw punishment for her sexual desires but there’s no doubt that it was thought provoking.
And to be fair to the show, it’s been doing this since day one with characters like Rumple and Regina. So many times we’ve defended Rumple with “what wouldn’t a parent do to find their child” or Regina with her me tL and emotional abuse at Cora’s hand. The moral that a parent will overturn the world for a child or that the death of a loved one is an excuse to act horribly don’t exactly mesh and gel in a positive way, but its at least thought provoking because it was actively being explored.
A lot of times now, those questionable morals just get dismissed because the show has no time for then because of ALL THE PLOT. And these morals aren’t minor quibble like what launched the thread (cursing) but really traumatizing ones like rape, abuse, corruption, and unbalanced gender dynamics.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Sciencevsmagic: Yes it might not have been worse. And thats were you say, it would have been better and I say, to me it would have just been different. But since I like the story for what it is now, I wouldnt want it to be different (Atleast not that aspect of it, but I could mention many other aspects, which I would have liked to be different)
But had they made more scenes of the main characters being conflicted by, but eventually coming together with the villains, I wouldnt have been mad at that either, cause those scenes have all been lovely.
I like your idea about the Robin character, that would have suited him well.
quote SvsM- “The problem is, the show and its messages will influence you whether you take it seriously or not. They will bypass your critical faculties and impact you on a subconcious level.”
It very interesting what you are saying here. And while I dont think any viewers will go out and do evil (or at least just bad things) or have a worse idea about their fellow humans, based on what they see on Once- I think you are right, when you say that on a subconscious level, we doo get our morals from tv, tvshows and stories in general. But its interesting how we then disagree, that this show will influence its viewer in a positive or a negative way. You say tomato and I say potato.. Lol I say that because, it might be both. If you see the bad,, that’s what gonna influence you, if you see the good, it’s that which will influence you… but that’s interesting to think about…. And I don’t know the answer to this.
Rumplesgirl mentions-viewers might stop watching or feel less inclined to watch. Yes that’s everyone’s free choice. If you don’t like it you can flip the channel. When a lot of viewers do that, they cancel the show. However, I don’t think the moral aspects are what will turn a lot of viewers off from the show in the end.
-Adopt either language or acts on a subconscious level: If I have understood correctly, I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but, you think kids (or viewers in general)Will be influenced badly from the show. .What Im trying to say is, I don’t think this will happen, because of how little meaning the actual evil acts have to the story on the show, because its pushed so far into the background. But like above its. Potato- tomato- it might be both, but I believe it depends on you,, and what you see in the show,, I don’t see justice undone I see… something else. Which I think I might have already said 😉 I might have been influenced on some deep subconscious level to think something bad, or doo worse in some situation, but I highly doubt it, it remains to be seen though I guess.
And also we haven’t seen the stories to the end yet.. the stuff you both mentioned might still happen in some way or form. We will see..
Nevermore:
quote- “BUT. Your argument sits a bit uncomfortably with me. In part because it reminds me of how people will defend a sexist/classist/racist joke by saying “hey, it’s just a joke,”
Well no thats definitely not what I was trying to say.
quote “What feels like inconsequential, unrealistic camp to some people, for others might hit a string — intentionally or not — and their response might be different, and more negative.”
Hmm you have a good point. Yes we will view the show all with our own eyes and through our own life experiences and perspectives. So what you say is, some people might sympathize with a victim on the show more, if they have life experiences that makes them see it from that perspective and then they will want to see more justice for them, but I just don’t think the creators of the show put much emphasis on the victims and the justice, because that isn’t really the story they want to tell.. So its just there in the background of the main story. Im just one of those who are fine with it being in the background, but others might not be. And that’s okay.. LOL I think we should just agree to disagree on this at this point.
But I also must confess, that there is a lot of the stories that I haven’t seen, because I didn’t watch full episodes from around the start of season 4- with the Elsa storyline and up till now,, but Im in the process of catching up. That might also influence why I see this differently from you guys.
And maybe Im just infatuated with Loving feelings for Once right now.. And Im seeing butterflies all over the place. Im telling you- that’s what a break from the show will do to you!
Im sorry if I make really long posts sometimes. But I find these convos interesting, so I have lots to say 🙂 sometimes I just have a hard time explaining myself in english and the posts come out really long.
However, I don’t think the moral aspects are what will turn a lot of viewers off from the show in the end.
It’s not one thing that determines why people stop watching. It can be a perceived morality issue (a lot of people were outraged at Ruby Slippers, for example, though the numbers did not show a correlation). It could be that other things are on at that time. It could be that the story has simply run its course and the audience no longer cares. Trying to pinpoint one exact cause is fruitless. I also think you’re disregarding the fact that people can be turned off by something they consider amoral AND still keep watching. The idea that the show is still on the air therefore people aren’t internalizing/recognizing amorality is a strawman fallacy. It just changes your perception of how the story is being told.
But if you honestly don’t think moral issues turn people off, then I would suggest browsing through social media posts of some of the more heated topics–like the aforementioned Ruby Slippers, if you can find them.
What Im trying to say is, I don’t think this will happen, because of how little meaning the actual evil acts have to the story on the show, because its pushed so far into the background.
It being pushed to the background doesn’t mean that viewers (of any age) don’t internalize it. Let’s take this out of the context of TV; think about the different experiences of two young children who are too young to fully understand “right” vs “wrong” (toddler age or even 5-7 yr old, though as @nevermore pointed out above, kids do understand more than we give them credit for).
One child is raised in a loving household where voices are never raised and hands are never lifted in anger, the other is raised in a household where one parent constantly beats the other and subjects the parents and even child to undue cruelty. The second child is not *doomed* to follow in those footsteps because people can obviously make their own choices but their life styles, life views, understandings of how people interact and what the proper response to certain acts is, is absolutely colored by these experiences even if child #2 is pulled out of that situation at a young age.
Our society (be it as large “TV viewer” or as tiny as “home life”) colors our world even if its on a subconscious level that you don’t recognize or “see” happening. Going back to TV, gender dynamics might the best example of this–how men are portrayed in normative, traditional dramas vs how women are portrayed. It’s reinforcing some rather nasty politics and tropes that are only somewhat recently coming under harsh criticism. Even if you aren’t saying out loud “it’s okay that I act this way (aggressive, passive) because I saw it on TV” you are still internalizing these depictions and allowing them to be normalized in everyday life. You’re not American, I know, so maybe you’re not fully aware of what’s going on here in our current election cycle but when a Presidential candidate is caught saying on camera that it’s okay for him to sexually assault women and then can brush it off as “locker room talk” that all men do, he’s reinforcing and normalizing aggressive, entitled, privileged masculine traits that are *absolutely* depicted in TV.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"I just want to make one small point. When discussing problematic moral messages of TV, it’s important to consider:
1) Is it the message itself that’s problematic?
2) Is this really the message endorsed by the show?
3) Does it matter?
In the case of ‘Ruby Slippers’, Henry swearing and Emma and Hook having pre-marital relations, the objections were squarely about the message itself. In all of these cases, it was clear what the show was trying to convey. Debates on these types of issues revolve around the participants’ moral code and value systems. And while I personally believe that people’s moral codes shouldn’t be exempt from scrutiny, particularly when they impact other people, that is a discussion which falls outside the scope of this forum.
Point number 2 is an interesting one. @Grimmsistr does make a valid point that the same material might not influence everyone in the same manner, even on a subconscious level. However, there are certain conventions which are likely to send the same message to all viewers. For example, simply showing something on screen, whether it’s a person or behaviour, is likely to be seen as normalising that person or behaviour. Repeated exposure increases people’s chances of accepting something, or even liking it (in the real world as well as on television). Showing negative consequences of a behaviour allows you to show a behaviour without condoning it. Giving someone lots of screen time signals that they are important, while showing a situation from a particular character’s POV is a means of generating sympathy for that character. Our minds are receptive to these conventions because they fit with how we naturally process reality. I know this is oversimplication, and there are many subtleties involved in portrayal. But in the case of OUAT, showing villains, humanising villains and rewarding villains while not spending adequate time dealing with their sins does, I think, reinforce the unhealthy messages we’ve outlined.
The discussion initiated by @Grimmsistr seems to revolve mainly around point 3. @nevermore, @RG and I are arguing in the affirmative, @Grimmsistr in the negative.
: Oh you guys sometime use words I don’t quite understand, but I hope I did get all of your meanings right!
Rumplegirl
quote “Our society (be it as large “TV viewer” or as tiny as “home life”) colors our world even if its on a subconscious level that you don’t recognize or “see” happening. ……Even if you aren’t saying out loud “it’s okay that I act this way (aggressive, passive) because I saw it on TV” you are still internalizing these depictions and allowing them to be normalized in everyday life.”
I agree, I just disagree that this show ‘Once’ is bad for anybody’s morals. I think I will leave it at that, because I have explained why I feel that way.
quote “Trying to pinpoint one exact cause is fruitless. I also think you’re disregarding the fact that people can be turned off by something they consider amoral AND still keep watching.”
I wasn’t trying to pinpoint any cause for why people would stop watching. I was only saying that I don’t think the shows moral message, as you’ve perceived it, is what will turn too many viewers off, but it will probably turn some off Im sure…but as I see it, most people will not see these bad moral messages on this show. At least I really don’t see them… But I could be outnumbered of course 🙂
I have no idea what the thing with the Ruby Slippers is about. I might try and look it up on the forums, if I have time.
Sciencevsmagic
1)Is it the message itself that’s problematic? If the message was -As I think you suggested, that doing bad things are not important. If you do them just be sorry about it, forget them, and move on.
Then yes we agree that’s problematic.
2) Is this really the message endorsed by the show? This is where I say -No it isn’t the message they are trying to convey. What they want to convey, but of course could be failing too, Is a message of forgiveness and friendship. That is why less emphasis on the evil doings more on the humans, the main characters, learning to work together.
3) Does it matter? So back to the first point, lets say- The message perceived by the viewer is the first: Bad deeds don’t matter, be sorry and move on. Now I agree this would matter and this would be problematic, if it was, as you say, that message which most viewers take away from the show…
But again, I disagree. This is not what most viewers will take away. Again, as I have stated my opinion about,, this is because (Evil deeds)are so much in the background, that they become irrelevant to the story we are seeing, most people are not going to think too deeply about them.
Then you say- but they might on a subconscious level. And yes, I will give you all that. If this is indeed the case,, then that is a problem. I only doubt that this show has that effect on people, because of all the good things that happen on the show. I feel that the good messages outweigh, this bad message that you say is subconsciously there, which I still disagree on.
One of the main moral lessons, that I think the show tries to give is -Anything can be forgiven- That’s one positive lesson a viewer can get from the show. Then some might think, but some things are hard to forgive, some things I don’t want to forgive. And that is up to each individual. But never the less, this is the message the show want to convey on this subject.
quote “Giving someone lots of screen time signals that they are important, while showing a situation from a particular character’s POV is a means of generating sympathy for that character. Our minds are receptive to these conventions because they fit with how we naturally process reality. ………. showing villains, humanising villains and rewarding villains while not spending adequate time dealing with their sins does, I think, reinforce the unhealthy messages we’ve outlined.”
Okay and on this point I think, I did touch in the first post on this topic: We can always discuss the writer’s choice to tell the story from the villain’s perspective and of then making the villains so very vile, as they did end up doing. Regina and Rumple’s Enchanted Forest selves was as vile as humans come. I think the writers chose to do that because they had to, to keep these characters as close to the original or their Disney versions as they could. Partly because, they work under Disney regime and partly because, these are characters known to the all viewers (at least Evil Queen was back then)And they wanted a vile Evil Queen, they didn’t want a mellowed down on. But it’s hard to come back from. It no easy task trying to redeem someone who killed an entire village. Anyway that’s what they chose to try to do
And then this is where some will disagree with the writers, that they have put so little emphasis on the making up for these evil deeds. They showed the acts, but they didnt show much of the resolutions. But that is where I say. How were they ever gonna be able to show enough resolution, for those acts to be completely forgiven?…From a victims point of view? They would never be able to show that resolution, because in the real world, that would mean a whole lot of years of jail time.
Then some say, they should have shown the villains apologizing to at least one of their victim, a peasant from the forest fx,. Or they should have shown the villains working to give their victims a better life after what they did to them. Now this I definitely agree with.. That would have been great. That would have been a wonderful story, but it wouldnt be the one we are seeing. That is why the writers chose to not emphasize the evil deeds or their resolution too much… only so that they could tell the story that they wanted.
On that choice we can agree or disagree with the writers. I think I would have liked it a little different, but I doo like this story and how it turned out in the end.
Anyway I feel that we are going around in circles a bit, or is it just me who feels this? I like this conversation but if we want to continue it, then how do we move on from these same points?
Look at how much conversation a simple little curse word sparked 🙂 Its like magic! And once again this turned out as one h… of a long post.
Here’s an interesting article which is highly relevant to the discussion on this thread:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-you-dont-realize-movies-are-controlling-your-brain/
2) Is this really the message endorsed by the show?
I agree with your take on this point and I’d point out one additional thing: passive endorsement. Do I think Adam and Eddy are sitting in a room coming with lists of questionable morals that they can insert into their show and pass it off as the main thesis of the show? No of course not. But do I think that they write the show in such a way that normalizes themes of misogyny, rape culture, ageism, corruption, sexism, classism, heteronormativity, ect? Yes. Does this stem in large part to them telling stories in the same way that TV has been telling stories for a long time? Yes. Does that make it okay? Nope.
but as I see it, most people will not see these bad moral messages on this show. At least I really don’t see them
This is a bit of thin ice argument. Your sample size of one (yourself) doesn’t ipso facto mean that others don’t see the bad morality in OUAT. The sample size of those who do see OUAT as having some pretty bad themes so far in this conversation is 3. By simple math, we outnumber you lol but I would never say that our 3-person opinion extends to all 4 million people who watch the show.
And again, I cannot say this enough, your morals and attitudes can be affected without you knowing it. You keep suggesting that OUAT isn’t affecting anyone because they won’t straight up see these bad morals but internalizing is done on a subconscious level without your knowledge; it happens when you passively accept depictions of amorality without decrying it.
Again, as I have stated my opinion about,, this is because (Evil deeds)are so much in the background, that they become irrelevant to the story we are seeing, most people are not going to think too deeply about them.
And is this not in and of itself a moral message? That when bad things happen you need not think about them too hard because you can easily push them to the background? The various school shootings, terrorist attacks, sexual assaults, ect that have garnered media attention lately haven’t happened anywhere near me or directly to me but does this mean I shouldn’t think about them, have thoughtful discourse about them, or try to understand how they happen in the first place?
The idea that amorality is irrelevant because at the same time positive messages of togetherness or unity are happening is a rather dangerous idea that seems condone amorality in the first place.
That would have been a wonderful story, but it wouldnt be the one we are seeing. That is why the writers chose to not emphasize the evil deeds or their resolution too much… only so that they could tell the story that they wanted.
And this–what–gives the writers carte blanche to do whatever they want and tell their story without any repercussions simply because “that’s not the story they wanted to tell”?
ETA: From the above linked article from @sciencevsmagic (which was brilliant!)
99 percent of the time, the movie’s “agenda” is nothing more than a lot of creative people passing along their own psychological hang-ups, prejudices, superstitions, ignorance and fetishes, either intentionally or unintentionally. But they are still passed on to you, because that’s what stories are designed to do.
That’s it. That’s it right there. Substitute in TV shows where it says movie and you’ve got the entire sum of our argument.
They shape the lens through which you see the world. The very fact that you don’t think they matter, that even right now you’re still resisting the idea, is what makes all of this so dangerous to you — you watch movies so you can turn off your brain and let your guard down. But while your guard is down, you’re letting them jack directly into that part of your brain that creates your mythology
And *this* is what’s wrong with the whole “it’s just a TV show” argument.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"
The topic ‘What is Considered Morally Correct in Once Upon a Time: Let's Go Higher’ is closed to new replies.