Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I am one of those viewers who avoided it because the promos and snippets made me believe that it would be about one thing–teenage angst in the middle of some sort of crisis, full of all the tropes and cliche characters you can imagine. I genuinely love the CW but they do stick pretty firmly in their wheelhouse. I imagined Clarke as a “heroine” who has traits pulled from Buffy, Katniss and Bella Swan–complete with the exasperating love triangle with two guys (lolz, this statement and the reality of the show) and that the conflict the world was under would fall into the vague “humans destroyed the world for reasons that are never fully explained and it’s really only important to know that your heroine will save it.”
LOL!
I first heard about ‘The 100’ when outrage was pouring out of social media over Lexa’s death. I’m not even on social media and I still heard about it. At first, I presumed it was a cut and dried case of the showrunners being jerks (OUAT has desensitised me to that), so I wasn’t too interested. But I kept hearing about it and eventually the to-do piqued my curiosity. Plus, it was on Netflix, so I thought, “Why not?”
I liked it straightaway. The writing was strong, the stakes were high and it subverted expectations at every turn. A male lead bad-boy whose primary relationship was with…not a lover, but a sister! A female technical genius. A little girl who was a murderer. The show was also wonderfully thought provoking on issues of morality when survival is at stake.
My favourite season is probably S2. If I had to break it down, I’d say it was the second half of S2, the first half of S3 and the first half of S1. The AI storyline didn’t work for me. It was kind of a cool concept, but some parts didn’t make sense. Why weren’t the grounders more technologically advanced if Becca the genius was their first commander? Why didn’t the chip impact scientific knowledge to the commander? For me, the show is at its best when the sci-fi aspects are part of the background and the focus is on character dynamics when negotiating impossible situations. I hope S4 returns to this.
Which brings me to…Clexa. I feel like you can’t really talk about The 100 without bringing up Clexa and, invariably, the “bury your gay” trope.
Very true. I would go further to suggest that this may well be The 100’s lasting legacy, which is bittersweet. Bitter because it’s a good show and probably deserves to be remembered for more than perpetrating a horrible trope. Sweet because some good things (the Lexa Pledge, funds raised for at-risk LGBTQ teens) did emerge from the furore, which may have changed television’s treatment of queer characters for the better.
I have many more thoughts about…Clexa, Bellamy and other things. But I’ll write them out tomorrow when my brain has recharged.
[adrotate group="5"]I really love this show and have so much to say about it that I doubt I can fit it all into one post. But here goes….
What I love about OITNB is that it it presents such an unsanitised view of humanity. Nothing is hidden, nothing is sugarcoated; sex, swearing, comedy, pathos, weakness, brutality, injustice, ignorance, tenderness, it’s all there, so matter of fact, so real. The writers clearly have an agenda about social justice, but it is showcased through empathy, not preachiness. I love how it challenges me, amuses me and puts me through an emotional wringer all at once.
Favourite character: Piper. While she can be frightfully annoying, she’s still the one I find it easiest to relate to (the S1 Piper I mean), even though I’m not an upper middle class, American, white lady. Another big part of why I might like her is because of how Taylor Schilling plays her. Her expressions and delivery are brilliant, and I think she’s somewhat underrated amongst an enormously talented cast.
Others whom I am highly partial to include (in no particular order): Poussey, Taystee, Gloria, Sister, Caputo, Red, Tucky (post S1).
Most interesting social issue: There are many, and I find it hard to pick just one. I found most of the S4 storylines really engaging. The mental illness stories were particularly heartbreaking – both Crazy Eyes’ and Lolly’s. The scene where Lolly was taken to Psych and she was asking Healy if they’d travelled back in time was the one and only time I teared up.
Theories about S5:
– Daya does not shoot Humps. Someone takes the gun from her.
– Taystee turns dark. Daya does too, and Ruiz uses this to her advantage.
– Something really bad (death, serious injury, transfer to max/psych) happens to Alex or Piper. This was foreshadowed by Leanne and Angie talking about how bad things happened to those who went into the cardboard time travel box.
– We learn that Piscatella murdered someone at the men’s max facility.
– The old guards return.
The reason why OitNB often makes me uncomfortable (again, in a good way) is that it forces me to reckon with my own status in society and this is where it’s helpful to talk about Piper.
I agree with your thoughts about Piper. Privilege is an interesting thing – you often don’t realise that you have it until you compare your experience to someone to doesn’t. While I like Piper, I don’t really think of myself as being like her. I do consider myself privileged, but I’ve seen a bit of both sides of the track at various times and in different areas of my life.
Season 4 is my favorite because it felt so gosh darn relevant.
Absolutely! I want to talk a bit about Poussey’s death as it’s probably the biggest moment of S4. After reading a few articles, I gather that many people are upset about both the fact that it happened and how it was handled. It’s obviously about “Black Lives Matter”, but the argument goes that it was unnecessary and hurtful to kill off such a beloved and relatable character to illustrate a painful reality to (mainly privileged, white) people who frankly, should have known about it anyway. The counter argument is that we live in an unfair world, and as painful as they might be, shock tactics are often necessary to spread awareness amongst the oblivious masses. Personally, I see both sides of the argument, but if I HAD to pick, I’d lean towards the “it was an evil necessity” argument. I’ve been thinking about whether the same effect could have been achieved by killing off another character in place of Poussey. Soso for instance, represents a similar type of innocence, but is nowhere near as popular (as far as I’m aware). But would this substitution have an the same effect on the audience? More importantly, is the level of emotional investment in the character proportional to the action audience members will take on this issue? I honestly don’t know.
The other criticism is how the killer, Bailey is portrayed as an innocent and sympathetic character. I’m in two minds about this as well. Clearly, the message they are trying to convey is that the fault lies with the system, not the individual. In real cases of police brutality, I would guess that while the same may be true, there are also many instances where BOTH the individual and system are at fault. So should the show have made it a point to show individuals being held accountable? Is it acceptable to show complex situations for the sake of complex situations, when doing this may undermine the deeper message? I can’t make up my mind conclusively. On the one hand, reality is never simple, and rarely are there clear cut heroes and villains. Highlighting this has always been one of OITNB’s strengths. However, I can appreciate the frustration affected viewers might feel at this message of “It’s complicated” and “It’s the system’s fault”. Because, really, what exactly is the system? Where are its boundaries? Are we talking only about the criminal justice system? The government? Are taxpayers included? What about the public who turn a blind eye to these injustices? Spreading the blame across a vaguely defined, abstract entity is nowhere near as emotionally satisfying as heaping it onto a single individual.
Piper and Alex–does anyone care anymore?
I am interested to see where they take this ship. It’s made abundantly clear that 1) this relationship is very unhealthy and 2) the two of them do have a connection. I think the best they can do is show the relationship develop and mature into something more functional, along with the individual characters’ growth. If we look at this show as Piper’s hero’s journey, then I think the Piper/Alex ship represents one of the two extremes that Piper is trying to reconcile in her life, i.e. her need for excitement and novelty. The other extreme is Larry, who to me, represents her need for safety and certainty. Everyone needs both certainty and uncertainy in their lives, and I am curious to see where on the spectrum Piper will end up when her prison journey is complete, and how that will be reflected in her lifestyle and her relationships.
I do think their constant on again/off again dynamic has become tiresome. I’d like to see them remain friends and slowly develop trust. However, their relationship needs to be kept in the background and remain very much secondary to their primary arcs – at least for the next few seasons.
Suzanne’s girlfriend–Maureen–why is she in prison?
No idea, but I too, am curious.
Have we seen the last of Aleida Diaz (Daya’s mother)
I wouldn’t mind if we have. She was never one of my favourites. I thought she was a bit of a jerk and her story arcs weren’t that interesting. Daya needs to come out from under her mother’s shadow. Having said that, I do still expect to see her, if only intermittently.
Were you satisfied with the ending of the Doggett and Officer Coates story?
First off, I want to say that I thought the rape story was very well done. While I might not agree with every single part of it, I thought it was explored with sensitivity and thoughtfulness. The conversation between Boo and Tucky about forgiveness was an absolute gem. While I totally get where Boo was coming from, I think Tucky nailed it when she said that forgiveness is not about what the offender deserves, but about giving yourself peace. That’s wisdom in a nutshell. It also showed how much Tucky’s grown since S1.
What was interesting about this arc was how they chose to humanise the rapist, Coates. While it was emphasised that he was in the wrong, he was also shown to have genuine remorse when he realised how much he’d hurt Tucky. They also made a point of showing that he had more compassion than the other guards. Now, personally, I don’t disagree with this choice. I suspect that there are many real rapists like Coates. However, the flip side is that there really is no excuse for his behaviour, and hence there was no need to portray him in such a sympathetic light. I would have had no problem with purely evil Coates either, if they had gone that way. What are your thoughts on this? Another thing that stuck out for me was Coates’ entitlement. He just assumed that Tucky wanted what he wanted. This type of male entitlement is too prevalent in society for comfort, so well done to the show for pointing this out.
The only part of the story that I didn’t like was the final scene with Tucky and Coates, where she kisses him. Frankly, this shocked me. Forgiveness is highly commendable, but it does NOT oblige you to be friends with your rapist. In fact, I’d say common sense dictates that you should stay away from him (or her). People usually don’t change quickly; in fact, Coates was shown to still have his sexual impulse problem. As for initiating a kiss? Heck, no!!! The reason I was shocked was because I thought Tucky, in her newfound maturity, would understand all of this. This felt like going three steps back, and I didn’t understand what they were trying to do with this scene.
OitNB, the 100, and Stranger Things all get a giant YES from me, especially the last two. The 100 is one of those shows that took me by complete surprise.
Awesome! I’ll start up threads for OITNB and ‘The 100’. I’ll do ST in a few weeks, once I’ve actually watched it.
As for books, I’m just starting the OITNB book. I loved ‘The Giver’; it was very powerful. Sadly, I did not like the other books in the series anywhere near as much.
What other shows are people watching?
My current passion is ‘Orange is the New Black’. Would love to discuss that one, especially S4. Anyone else watch it? Then there’s ‘The 100’. I’d be happy to discuss older seasons, and S4 is airing in Jan, I think. I’m also planning to watch ‘Stranger Things’ soon.
In other news, how’s everyone doing? How’s everyone feel about the season?
A bit stressed and distracted from OUAT by other issues last week. As for this season, I’d say it’s bit alright, if a little flat. I don’t have too many criticisms but it’s failing to ignite the passion of the old days. The main reason I still watch it is the fun of discussing it here.
We don’t have a whole lot to talk about recently–I can’t decide if that’s a good thing or a bad thing?
Baaaaad thing!! Conversation is fun! If OUAT fails to inspire, let’s talk about other shows!
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
