- This topic has 39 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
SciencevsMagic
Related to the article, which was brilliant, right on topic.- But this is true for any and all stories on tv and elsewhere.. every story will have underlying issues, because these are underlying in our society as a whole. As it relates to this topic we are discussing: Are the story of the villains not showing enough remorse? or making up enough for their evil doings? I say yes, the issue is there, as you say, but I believe it is outweighed by the story’s positive message.
In the case of the villains-
1. A viewer, who takes a positive message from the story, might go out and forgive a friend for a wrongdoing.
2. A viewer, who takes a negative message, might go out and think. ‘Well I don’t need to apologize for doing this person wrong, let’s just forget it ever happened.
Both might happen, but as I stated, I believe the positive message outweighs (or outshines- as in, most viewers will see this) the negative, therefore I believe that most viewers will also go out and do the former.
Rumplesgirl
quote- “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.”
Uhm but you just did. Or, you tried to use your example of being three, as that being a better argument then my being just one. Its just as thin I would say. But we can only speak for ourselves, that’s what I meant ,when I said I didn’t see it myself. We would need to make an examination of the whole viewer base of Once to really know.
quote “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.”
And again, I cannot say enough- I KNOW and I agree, our morals are affected by what we see on tv. I don’t keep suggesting viewers are not affected by Once.. I keep suggesting that they are mostly affected in a positive way. Iike I said, I still disagree that what viewers will take away from this show are mostly bad stuff, they very likely will take away some bad stuff also, but the overall picture, the overall message,, I still say is a positive one.
quote “And *this* is what’s wrong with the whole “it’s just a TV show” argument.”
I feel you have an issue with me saying that argument. When I said that, I didn’t mean it as an attack against you, or anyone who takes the show serious. As I said, anybody is free to take the show as serious as they would like. I just meant that, I don’t take issue to much with what I see on the show, because to me the show is just fun entertainment (not getting into the whole thing about, the underlying messages here, that is taken up elsewhere)
……………………………………………………
But what are we supposed to do, if we want to either tell ourselves, or see as a viewer, a story about Batman (using an example from the article SCvsM had linked) if we wont have violence in the story? Without it, it would be a pretty boring story. A lot of the stories that are told in our days would not be able to be told, if we always needed to see things from the highest of moral standards. (and this is not getting into the topics of either gender or race or other such issues, but just related to the topic of Villains and redeeming them ) I have a feeling you guys are gonna read tons of bad things into what I just said there 😉 I don’t mean that storytellers are exempt from trying to doo better and trying to go in the direction of giving their audients better morals, instead of worse ones. Im simply trying to say, they also have to be carefull not to limit the stories, but that is a balance…
Storytellers will tell their stories,, really, you could say it’s a form of conversation and we who listen to the stories, will give our answers back, this way the stories will keep changing.. and as the storytellers are only human beings, they will fall into traps and screw up some stuff and we as audients,, We can laugh of it, learn from it, but also be held back by it and do worse because of it. But eventually we will get to somewhere better, in spite of what horrible stuff we learn from tv. I mean, if we look back in time, we have definitely gotten to a better place in spite of all the bad underlying, unintentional things stories have stated as truths. We will learn the good along the way. But this is related to a very much bigger conversation, to me.
I still believe that the moral we can pull from the stories of the Villains on Once, are by in large, a positive story of forgiveness.
But if we get into other things than just the “Villains and their redemption, without them being apologetic enough to their victims” If we talk, for instance- Gender roles, as RumplesGirl mentions, then the ground becomes more shaky also for me.
A couple of questions as examples: Why Do all the female villains have to answer to Rumple? Why are they most powerful when they are angry? and why most sexy when they are most villainous?? Also couldn’t they have thrown in at least one lead female, who didnt need a man to feel like she had her happy ending.
But I believe these things all say more about Adam and Eddy being intimidated by powerful woman (but they also find them sexy, so we could take that as a compliment 😉 ) -then they say anything about what message they try to convey on gender equality.
[adrotate group="5"]I don’t get what is the discussion here, this is a show where Hook, a white male who has shown sociopathic behavior, murdered Merlin, an innocent POC, and the former hasn’t shown any remorse and more importantly faced no consequences and lives his life like nothing happened and it’s all of a sudden “Merlin who?”
Do people still belive that the show depict good morals after that?!
"All your questions are pointless"
Uhm but you just did. Or, you tried to use your example of being three, as that being a better argument then my being just one. Its just as thin I would say. But we can only speak for ourselves, that’s what I meant ,when I said I didn’t see it myself. We would need to make an examination of the whole viewer base of Once to really know.
No I didn’t. I said I would not extend three people believing the show is amoral to the 4 million viewers whereas you said you didn’t think people/audience see the show as amoral, at least you didn’t which suggests that you were extending the one (you) to the whole.
However this is likely a case of misreading each other, so let’s just agree that it’s impossible to know what the entire viewership believes/feels
don’t mean that storytellers are exempt from trying to doo better and trying to go in the direction of giving their audients better morals, instead of worse ones. Im simply trying to say, they also have to be carefull not to limit the stories, but that is a balance…
No one is trying to say that they have to limit themselves to not telling stories with amorality. We’re saying that if they are goong to have amorality then it needs to be addressed in a thoughtful and considerate manner with an actual intention besides “moving the plot football”
Some great stories can be riddled with violence and amorality (cf: something like Breaking Bad or GoT) but these actions have consequences and are dealt with by the writers. They are not shoved go background of the story, handwaving them away as if they never happened or don’t matter.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Some great stories can be riddled with violence and amorality (cf: something like Breaking Bad or GoT) but these actions have consequences and are dealt with by the writers. They are not shoved go background of the story, handwaving them away as if they never happened or don’t matter.
What I think OUAT fails to do is define a consistent moral codex for the world they built. Instead they are peddling “this is unmarked, universal morals” along the lines of “this is a show about hope and family.” If they had world-built it with thoughtfully developed and stable moral coordinates, this could have been a really powerful, interesting show precisely because of the potential encounter between a world with magic, and one without. Anyway, these needn’t be my moral coordinates — in the same way that GoT or Breaking Bad aren’t. For me personally, it doesn’t need to reflect my politics/cultural views — I, for one, am happy to read or watch speculative fiction or actual non-fiction about radical difference, because it makes me think.
For example, @sciencevsmagic proposed this idea about Robin actually being a champion of the underclasses with a well-formulated message about what he was doing and why. It would have been especially fascinating if they had actually justified the crappy treatment of the peasants in EF with a logic of a kind of caste or estate system (as it was in medieval Europe). It would have been also very interesting to see how this would have played out in SB.
Anyway, in part, I think the problem is not simply bad morals, but an absence of firm and deliberate world building, with a robust meta-level conversation about that world woven into the storytelling. Well, that, and how they peddle their crappy morality under the guise of positive values. For example, the subtle “benign sexism” misrepresented as feminism annoys me. Not actually because OUAT has gender norms that I personally find problematic — someone else might not, after all. It’s the misrepresentation that I find exacerbating.
My mind kept brewing with this yesterday and it occurred to me, that maybe which messages you take with you from the show could also be influenced by which character you latch on to, so to speak, as a viewer. Which character you identify with and therefor see the stories from their perspective. You will be more inclined to take in the positive message if your character has an overall positive storyline.
Speaking for myself, I mostly identify with Regina and her story arc is overall positive. I also identify with Emma and Snow sometimes and to me, their stories mostly ends with a positive outlook.
Not only that, but also- How much does the stories give to these characters? I mean, Regina she has really been given so much through all her stories both in screen time, positivity arcs and all. Other characters, I can imagine, would be more frustrating to follow if you identify with them, like Rumple and Belle for example. Do you get my point? Im not sure I explained it well.
Nevermore
Anyway, in part, I think the problem is not simply bad morals, but an absence of firm and deliberate world building, with a robust meta-level conversation about that world woven into the storytelling. Well, that, and how they peddle their crappy morality under the guise of positive values.This is also what turned me off of the show a couple of seasons back. They wanna do so much stuff, that a coherent world/story gets lost beneath all the stuff. Its more,, lots of small stories that they try weaving together and when they fail, we see plot holes, recons etc. For me, because I wanted to enjoy the show again (not saying everyone needs to do that) I had to give up my desire to make sense of the world they build. I just hold on like on a Disney merry-go-round and enjoy all the individual images they present to me.
What is morally correct in Once is whatever is convenient at the time to be morally correct. There is a lot of inconsistency on Once not just with the plot and world-building themselves, but with morals, too. For example, it was okay for Regina to kill an innocent man to protect Snowing, but it was not okay for Emma to kill Cruella to protect Henry.
Keeper of Regina's bravery
Alright, I wont try to convince anyone about this anymore. I will just end my part by saying, that it is my experience with this show, that: You CAN take away the good messages and just laugh at the stupid ones. This was a fun conversation thanks everyone who joined.. Lets have more of these deep discussions here I love those.
Thanks for the discussion everyone. It’s been interesting for sure.
You CAN take away the good messages and just laugh at the stupid ones.
I’m not trying to convince anyone either – I know your intent is good. But I learned today (albeit in a different context) that the seemingly stupid stuff, even if it’s an absolute joke, can sometimes bite you in the rear…by winning the majority vote for instance. Not referring to anything in particular of course, it’s just an insight that I had.
Not referring to anything in particular of course,
"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 MAGICLol… Yes its not the dark, nor the gold, but The Orange One, Drumple… or …what is his name again?. He Is spinning and Spiiinnnning some manipulative gold from the evil side. Al the while, the World can only try to have hope, that he will redeem himself -That we have not all just been cursed, to go somewhere horrible. And that we all will find each other in the end. As She said it, I also believe, that YOUR United Enchanted Forest is Bighearted and is Inclusive. So please -Don’t lose your heart.
The topic ‘What is Considered Morally Correct in Once Upon a Time: Let's Go Higher’ is closed to new replies.