- This topic has 63 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Unless the Author was also writing their dialogue, I am a lot more reluctant to see them as all that innocent. I mean the profoundly self-absorbed litany about not being able to claim the status of heroes… And then worrying that maybe the fact that they feel bad about what they’ve done is going to be a problem and affect their kid? Meanwhile, not one thought about the impact that this might have had on Mal… while Snow herself is heavily pregnant? Seriously? I don’t even know what to do with that honestly.
Yes, THAT! Also, one part in their dialogue that really annoys me is the, “and we were brave.” I’m sorry, but in my book a person who kidnaps a child has absolutely no right to pat themselves on the back by referring to what they did as “brave” in any way. Honestly when Snow said that line it took me right out of the scene because it was so absurd. Not for the first time I’m left questioning the moral compass of the writers of this show.
Compound that with their actions in Storybrooke and that makes all of this worst. Because they STILL don’t seem that remorseful for what they did to Mal. They only seem to mourn their status as heroes in the eyes of their daughter.
They’re totes cool with BURNING A MAN ALIVE (reasonable assumption that’s what’d happen to him because they know he’s trapped in the page they’re gonna burn) just to keep covering their own butts. Like, seriously, that’s really a thing they actually thought would be acceptable to do? It’s lovely that they realised it was wrong before they went through with it, but for a while there they were totally cool with murder. And it wasn’t, “This person will kill my family if we don’t kill them first,” this was just, “If he gets out he’s gonna tell on us for being bad.”
I’m fine with “hero” characters having flaws because perfect characters are annoying and unrealistic. But the way they’ve gone about it with Snowing isn’t so much showing that they’re good people with flaws, it’s more like they’ve never really been good people and what we’ve seen of them previously has just been a facade. What they’re trying to do with the characters now just doesn’t fit, it doesn’t feel natural, it devalues how they’ve shown them previously. It’s just poor writing IMO.
[adrotate group="5"]Yes, THAT! Also, one part in their dialogue that really annoys me is the, “and we were brave.” I’m sorry, but in my book a person who kidnaps a child has absolutely no right to pat themselves on the back by referring to what they did as “brave” in any way.
Yes I was bothered by that quite a bit as well. Brave would be leaving Mal’s baby alone and realizing that Baby Emma is your responsibility and you have to teach her right from wrong.
But the way they’ve gone about it with Snowing isn’t so much showing that they’re good people with flaws, it’s more like they’ve never really been good people and what we’ve seen of them previously has just been a facade. What they’re trying to do with the characters now just doesn’t fit, it doesn’t feel natural, it devalues how they’ve shown them previously. It’s just poor writing IMO.
Agreed. It’s a way to make the fan favorite villains look better by showing how the heroes were really never heroes to begin with. But that flies in the face of everything we saw in the earliest seasons.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"I actually have mixed feelings on this. Firstly, I’m glad for the first time in four seasons that Once is finally addressing that even heroes can make crappy decisions. I’m very happy about that, but the way they did it here, it’s not entirely their fault to begin with since their free was manipulated by the author. I think the moment Snow realized that they did bad a thing in the nursery is when they became aware that the author manipulated her decision.
They’re totes cool with BURNING A MAN ALIVE (reasonable assumption that’s what’d happen to him because they know he’s trapped in the page they’re gonna burn) just to keep covering their own butts. Like, seriously, that’s really a thing they actually thought would be acceptable to do? It’s lovely that they realised it was wrong before they went through with it, but for a while there they were totally cool with murder. And it wasn’t, “This person will kill my family if we don’t kill them first,” this was just, “If he gets out he’s gonna tell on us for being bad.”
Lol!”Oh noez, Maleficent burned some random guards, she’s an evil beast… let’s steal her baby! […] Ooh, look. The guy who could rat us out is trapped in this page. Let’s burn it! (Wait, that’s not really heroic, is it)”
*facepalm*
I’m fine with “hero” characters having flaws because perfect characters are annoying and unrealistic. But the way they’ve gone about it with Snowing isn’t so much showing that they’re good people with flaws, it’s more like they’ve never really been good people and what we’ve seen of them previously has just been a facade. What they’re trying to do with the characters now just doesn’t fit, it doesn’t feel natural, it devalues how they’ve shown them previously. It’s just poor writing IMO.
Exactly. But I do wonder — is this poor writing (as in, they’re trying to make them look less sympathetic, but doing it in a sloppy, heavy-handed way) or is it intentional? Is the thought process “How far can we push our audience and make them hate these previously sympathetic characters?” (I know not everyone was on board with Rumple to begin with, but for those of us who liked the character, it’s painful to watch what they did with him — as many have already discussed on this forum). I’ll be honest, I was never overly fond of Snowing — their particular brand of self-righteous entitlement has been rubbing me the wrong way from the start. But even I can acknowledge that this feels way out of character.
Agreed. It’s a way to make the fan favorite villains look better by showing how the heroes were really never heroes to begin with. But that flies in the face of everything we saw in the earliest seasons.
This! So, is the endgame saying that there are no real villains or heroes, and that it’s all contextual? If that’s the message, then they seem to be conflating the idea that evil and good are process-based with moral relativism of the simplistic variety.*
(* It’s one thing to espouse moral relativism à la Game of Thrones, which is largely cultural => i.e. we have to suspend our own normative assumptions about society in order to understand the morality system and motivations of different factions and characters. But lets face it, this isn’t HBO or JRR Martin, and it’s also NOT where OUAT started)
This! So, is the endgame saying that there are no real villains or heroes, and that it’s all contextual? If that’s the message, then they seem to be conflating the idea that evil and good are process-based with moral relativism of the simplistic variety.*
I think we’ve seen that throughout the seasons. Not every villain is evil for the sake of being evil. I think the closest we’ve ever come to that level is Pan. Every other villain we’ve come across is sympathetic one way or another that you really can’t call them evil.
And every villain and hero has their own code that they live by. It’s how they get things done, their methods that differ.
I actually have mixed feelings on this. Firstly, I’m glad for the first time in four seasons that Once is finally addressing that even heroes can make crappy decisions. I’m very happy about that, but the way they did it here, it’s not entirely their fault to begin with since their free was manipulated by the author. I think the moment Snow realized that they did bad a thing in the nursery is when they became aware that the author manipulated her decision.
I’m fine with heroes making crappy choices. That’s totally fine. But the problem is that we don’t know how much of this was free will. And like @Nevermore pointed out, the dialogue between Snowing later seems to suggest that they weren’t completely devoid of Free Will. They did make their own choices and at many turns they had a chance to go back: they could have not taken the egg, for instance. I don’t think the Author manipulated every single thing. He pushed them toward the Apprentice but they chose to go down that route which is a much better fit in the show’s philosophy that evil isn’t born it’s made.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Hopefully, the next time there’s a Hot Seat interview or something, someone will ask.
Part of me fears that this is actually what A and E intended. A lot of this feels very LOST-ian. Does everything happen for a reason because of some sort of God/Fate-Manipulation (John Locke’s approach) or was it a series of events based on choices the castaways made but stemmed from their own choices and not God-manipulation (Jack Shepherd’s approach).
In LOST it was a fascinating philosophical dialogue to watch…but here the idea that maybe it’s all God-Manipulation flies in the underlying moral thesis of the show since S1: evil isn’t born, it’s made. If everything we’ve seen the characters do since the Author became the Author (good or bad) is somehow Authorial manipulation then how do we rationalize the “evil (and good) isn’t born, it’s made” mentality.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Part of me fears that this is actually what A and E intended. A lot of this feels very LOST-ian. Does everything happen for a reason because of some sort of God/Fate-Manipulation (John Locke’s approach) or was it a series of events based on choices the castaways made but stemmed from their own choices and not God-manipulation (Jack Shepherd’s approach). In LOST it was a fascinating philosophical dialogue to watch…but here the idea that maybe it’s all God-Manipulation flies in the underlying moral thesis of the show since S1: evil isn’t born, it’s made. If everything we’ve seen the characters do since the Author became the Author (good or bad) is somehow Authorial manipulation then how do we rationalize the “evil (and good) isn’t born, it’s made” mentality.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m having trouble with too. And there’s a big gulf between being “pushed” in a particular direction, and having one’s actions puppeteered.
I think we’ve seen that throughout the seasons. Not every villain is evil for the sake of being evil. I think the closest we’ve ever come to that level is Pan. Every other villain we’ve come across is sympathetic one way or another that you really can’t call them evil. And every villain and hero has their own code that they live by. It’s how they get things done, their methods that differ.
Very true. I think the primary difference, and the thing that really throws me sometimes with OUAT is is self-referentiality.OUAT is not just about showing good vs evil (however configured and reconfigured) but also a constant talking/narrative about the nature of good and evil. Which, lately, the narrative and the actions are starting to diverge, so I think the frustration, puzzlement, and/or disappointment with Snowing many folks are expressing in this thread has to do with the cognitive dissonance that this apparent divergence causes.
The topic ‘What Snowing Did’ is closed to new replies.