Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
In ethic courses one of the the top ethical dilemmas brought up is the Trolley problem. Choice there is a little different, to save the live of many for the price of one life, but goes in that direction.
Funny, just today rewatched this very episode of Xena (title Death in Chains, ep 9 of season 01, if anyone is looking for it). What a coincidence. 😆 All this redemption and destiny and evil isn’t born talk of Once Upon a time gave me a good reason to begin rewatching one of my all time fav shows, although should think that by now would know it by heart (but never had a good memory for lines). What hiatuses and short breaks can be good for 😉 Thanks for bringing it up here, obisgirl.
Liked the view on death they showed in this Xena episode, as something that is part of life, painful but not evil per se. Something that was there for a moment in this episode of Once Upon as well, when Eva told her daughter, that we all reach a moment in life where we are not meant to get better.
Still have the feeling, that this idea of saving one life by using a candle to take away another person’s life has crossed my way somewhere before, some other myth, tale, fiction. Was there something in Charmed maybe? Anyone? Racking my brain here.
[adrotate group="5"]¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
A devoted group of fans can turn votings like this. Saw it happening recently with 2013 Top TV couples in E!Online, against some odds (number of viewers for example) my fav TV couple actually made it (yep, not much of a shipper but even I do ship once in a while, and I do ship Doccubus, aka Bo and Lauren on Lost Girl, despite that I like Bo and the wolf man Dyson as well). Fans, cast and crew did some campaign on Twitter and Facebook for it.
If you want to know what devotion in such case can mean, here an impression of what the Doccubus fans did. For inspiration 😉
And the EvilRegals were quite succesfull as well voting on tv.com for best dramatic actress of 2012- even though in the end Lana Parilla was beaten by Jessica Capshaw (what a tough choice) it was really close. Just saying.
P.S. Voted for Colin.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
Interesting what Phee dug up about the names. Damarians, Demarians, sounds similar when some speak it. Could be a geeky nod to Star Trek (although they seem to be more on a trip to offer us some Star Wars easter eggs at the moment)
When ignoring the n at the end and writing Damaria differently you get da Maria – and google for it and you’ll find a number of restaurants and pizzerias all over the world.
There is a fantasy novel called “The Exiles of Damaria” by science-fiction writer Ardath Mayhar. She wrote among other novels as well a novel for the BattleTech franchise, title “The Sword and the Dagger”.
Zorn in German means wrath – and is used as family name. There is a small town in Texas named Zorn named after a storekeeper there. As well though you can find even a Star Trek connection here, Groppler Zorn was a character in the pilot of Star Trek Next Generation, the leader of the Bandis who were in negotiations with the federation and had used a strange space creature to create a very comfortable station (Farpoint Station)
Pretty sure there are more possibilities, I too did only a quick search.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
I’m not saying Emma is a terrible person for the mistake she made, I very much can see her motivation to tell the lie, and might have done the same in her shoes, but it’s a mistake. Emma doesn’t try to explain it away, just stands to what she did, and that I like very much about her. Neither am a trying to excuse Henry. I’m just saying, that at this very moment Emma was right not to come down on Henry because of his snarky remark. Sometimes it is better to let something go for the moment, come back later to the actual issue and talk about it when everybody is less emotional and thus ready to listen.
If anyone Neal should have intervened that moment, but, well, think he is overwhelmed right now. And Neal maybe tries to be the good guy for the hour for Henry, so that Henry doesn’t feel like everybody is letting him down and then would withdraw from everyone. No excuse either, just understanding the situation and why everybody reacted the way they did. Sometimes there is no absolutely right or wrong, just a maybe better way to handle things.
@WeWereCursed! wrote:
Also, Emma has to be afraid her son is going to hop on a bus the second he’s not totally pleased with her? Yeah, Regina was a crappy mother, and the reason he wasn’t properly punished for running away to Boston was because who could blame him?
What Gold told Emma was a bucket full of crap. He is the only person in these scenes I could have growled at and now would like to give a strong piece of my mind (if he was a real person). He was not friendly and understanding and on her side, as it might seem to some, he was all selfish and fishing for Emma’s sympathy and pushing her buttons to manipulate her to do what he needs her to do. You’re not doing this for me but for Henry? Pardon? You sound like Regina? Ha, nope, maybe from Henry’s point of view right now but not in fact. And to all thinking Gold supports Swanfire – think twice. Gold couldn’t care less unless it is to his advantage. I am impressed though how sympathetic the character still appears to many, well, he knows how to charm people.
Interesting that by now he seems to not even try a bit anymore though to charm Henry.@Schmacky wrote:
Exactly! So, while I totally get that Emma continued the lie in Manhattan for selfish reasons, it doesn’t mean that she originated the lie for selfish reasons. And, I’m a little afraid the show is going that way.
I understand your concerns, even more after what Kitsis&Horowitz said in the producers podcast. Despite that I think there are some similarities between Regina and Emma since season one, despite that I even agree that from some point of view it can look like they have been doing nearly the same when lying to Henry, it simply is not exactly the same thing. There was different motivation, different context. Right, Regina’s reaction as mother might be understandable and something Emma now might see from a different perspective, but Regina was as well reacting as Evil Queen, feeling a threat to the world she created, her happy ending.
On a motherly level what Emma and Regina did might be comparable, okay, but that is it. Not sure either if the writers see it that way though. Let’s say, I have the alarming feeling, that some maybe subtle but significant differences in motivation and behavior are brushed aside for the sake of the message that no one is born evil. I agree with the message, but not always with how they sell it.
@slurpeez108 wrote:
As for a hero, I think having Neal be Peter Pan would be pretty epic for Henry. The kid already thinks it’s amazing his dad is also from the Enchanted Forest. Just wait until he realizes his dad can fly!
Oh my goodness, give this kid some normal ground to stand on, not that he would fly way too high himself one day 😉
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
Thanks, malchore and SpinningGold. 🙂
Love that we are passionate people here in the forums with multiple views and opinions, so things can get a little heated at times. As long as it takes only a little nudge and not some Rumplestiltskin like powerful magic to keep us civilized I think we are all good.
And now: group hug, or so? 🙂
And then back to topic.Think it’s okay to talk even about child actors if one thinks they can do better, as long as it is meant supportive and not chopping their heads off. I hadn’t the impression that anyone here was doing the latter so far, just that we have different opinions, if Bailee Madison’s acting was just good or brilliant in this episode, and that directing eventually could have done more to help her to make it better.
Yes, kids are easy to impress, but as well in my experience they are eager that we are honest with them. It helps to grow to know that people perceive performance differently . Any actor, child and adult, wants to know how well they did or if there is something to improve. As long as we keep in mind they are humans beings and discuss their acting not them as person it should be okay in my opinion.¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
If I had something like a yellow card here I would show it to both of you, malchore and SpinningGold. Show some respect for each other and for the forums, please. You are getting personal offensive, and I am convinced both of you are mature enough to stop this before it gets even uglier.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
@Jolly Roger wrote:
I have been thinking the exact same thing since the last episode. I really don’t understand it either.
Jbwood5 – You make a good point. But killing is killing. Doesn’t matter the situation. And Charming and Snow are against murder (they’ve stated this multiple times).Killing is not killing – unless we reduce it to a technical matter. Situation, context, motives do matter, make a difference. Of course, that is an ethical point of view, so changeable with history, society and convictions. As far as I know every society makes a distinction between justifiable and not justifiable killing, but what is defined as what can be different.
A good question if the use of violence, of deadly violence is in any case ever justifiable.
Although could turn the question around and ask, is there any use of violence, even of deadly violence which never could be justifiable? Should the question even ever be asked that way around? But maybe that would be more a discussion for a philosophy forum.
Who says that it wouldn’t be okay at all for Snow (or David, Emma …) to kill Cora or Regina or Hook or Rumple (yup, he is a bad guy too, isn’t he, he killed, and might attack Henry)? Don’t think that anyone says it is in general wrong without regards of circumstances and context. What is questioned, if it is okay to go after Cora, Regina or Hook or other “bad guys” as an act of either revenge or as a preemptive strike to stop them harming, killing in the future. This question includes the execution of Regina stopped last minute by Snow.
I don’t see any double standards here, I see conflicting views and ethical dilemma.
Can we agree, that basically killing someone is something that shouldn’t be done? Or in other words: As long as we ignore circumstances we all assume that killing a human is basically wrong.
(Before you start arguing, there are reasons justifying killing, let this basic assumption sink in, please)
That means: As long as we ignore circumstances killing a human being would be something that demands punishment.
(again, please, just let this statement sink in for a moment)
Killing a human being is basically wrong, but there are circumstances that can make a kill justifiable and make us pass on punishment or change the manner of punishment.
If there are circumstance making a kill justifiable, which circumstance are that?
Who defines which circumstance make a kill justifiable?Now, I should point out that if I say something is justifiable I don’t mean per se that it makes something all right or good even, for me there is a difference. If something is justifiable it doesn’t make it for me automatically the right thing to do, but it changes how I will deal with it and its consequences. Justifiable is a matter of ethics and jurisdiction, if something is right is a matter of view and ethics, it’s more an opinion or believe than a fact.
So, back to Snow.
Is it okay that Snow probably killed soldiers in battle? No, but it is justifiable as something done in combat. If she would have met Regina there directly in combat, if Regina would have attacked her there face to face and Snow would have killed her that moment, then I doubt many would question if that is okay to go unpunished.
If Snow would have killed Regina or Cora there in the clock tower while Regina had Johanna’s heart in her hands, I think as well most people would have found that justifiable, and in this case many would call it even right, seeing it as an act of immediate defense.
Yes, it matters if something happens face to face and the very moment, or if the reasoning is based on something that has happened in the past or is speculated to eventually happen in the future.
When Snow on the cemetery after burying Johanna muses about what had happened and then states, she is going to kill Cora, the situation is judged differently. There is no face to face situation there, no immediate threat, no ongoing attack.
One can argue, it’s still about defense for Snow (is it?), it makes sense to stop Cora now before she does more harm, doesn’t it. Not killing her would make Snow even kinda responsible for all the future deaths Cora might cause, or not? So it is okay, it has to be done, and Snow should not feel any guilty. Do it, be done and have your happy ending.
Well, I would find Snow scary if she wouldn’t hesitate and feel bad about it and not go through the feelings of ethical dilemma here.
It’s the old question if assassinating a brutal, murderous despot is murder or not. Well, it is murder in my opinion, it’s not an act of immediate self-defense, but it can be justyfied, eventually.
But how far should it go? It seems simple as long as just the person in question, Cora or Regina, will be killed. But what if you can only accomplish that by killing someone else on the way? Or is it okay to trick them into a situation where you can single them out, but to get there you have to use other people, innocent people even, bring them eventually in harm’s way? What means does the end justify? If it would kill maybe 1 or 2 more or less innocent people but one can be safe to assume it will safe the lives of many other would that be as justifiable?
Right, was it really justifiable that David and Snow went into war against King Georg and Regina? And we’re back at Nonnie’s question. Why is one okay and the other not? No simple answers there, not in my view that is.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
@tombo671 wrote:
I have always wondered what the writers were thinking with it, but I hadn’t voiced my opinion on it till now. Next thing you know will probably get a “King Mao” or “King Stalin”.
Sorry, but that goes too far. Saying this you make it sound like the writers choose the name with the intent to honor King Leopold II of Belgium and his crimes against humanity even. Is that what you are thinking? Now I doubt they were really aware of it, think that they were simply not thoughtful enough to see that naming a king Leopold could be taken as a reference to a brutal ruler. They made a mistake, the naming is, looking at history, insensitive, alright. But we should leave at at that and not start offending the writers.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
Oh. My. Goodness. The child is acting irrational, how could that be?!? An 11 year old boy acting inmature, who would expect that, it’s so not real!
Sorry for being snarky. But you should have known me as kid and teenager, this is a moderate and somewhat grown-up version of me here. 😉
And no, not talking about the acting but how Henry is behaving.
@Phee wrote:
It also didn’t bother me that Henry then went to cheerily ask Rumple about calling him grandpa right after his snarky comment to Emma. He’s mad at Emma, he wants her to feel on the outer, and being friendly to Rumple and Nealfire will rub salt into her wound. Obviously that’s not a nice thing to do, but he’s a kid, who just found out that his mother, who he trusted, has been lying to him about something major like his father having been dead. This isn’t just some little white lie. His father was out there, alive, and he never would have known because Emma told him he was dead. That is a major lie, and frankly I don’t blame him for putting it on par with the lies Regina told him.
I’m willing to give the kid some leeway and some time to process it all and work through and express his initial anger. Like I said, it’s only been about 24 hours. Imagine you’re an 11 year old kid, and your mother had told you that your father was dead, and then you find out she’d lied about it when you suddenly come face to face with him. I know I sure as hell wouldn’t be too happy with my mother if I were in Henry’s shoes.
Exactly.
More. At this moment, from Henry’s perspective it feels like a major betrayal of trust. Not just that it questions his trust in Emma, it questions as well Emma’s trust in him. She didn’t trust Henry to be able to handle that is father was alive, and was a thief, not a good guy, no knight in shinning armor, no hero, but someone who disappointed and hurt Emma. Emma didn’t share that with Henry, hadn’t the trust, that she could rely on him in this. You know what can hurt those who love you as much as letting them down? Not trusting them that they are able to understand and stick by you no matter what.
Think Henry will understand someday, will forgive, but it will gnaw on him for a while.
@WeWereCursed! wrote:
I honestly think the line was kind of funny, mostly because it’s the snarky type of thing Regina would say…and come on, some of her was bound to rub off.
Yes, and Henry was snarky before.
Not the most funny line ever, not the most brilliant writing, but I found it okay. (And it was no apple pie, uhm, turnover)
@LaurieAnne wrote:
I am so glad that someone brought this up today. It’s been bothering me because I don’t know many adults who would let a line like that go by without saying something in the way of correction. It bothers me that Emma is just taking it. I know she hasn’t been an official mom for very long (same excuse for Neal) but she isn’t spineless either. I’m not sure why Neal would be mad at Emma for not telling him about Henry – how exactly was she supposed to do that? He is the one who left her. I think it will have to be Neal to tell Henry the exact circumstances about his and Emma’s breakup. I don’t think Emma will do it.
I am coping with this by watching Season 1 episodes and remembering how Henry used to be.
Actually it makes me like Emma even more. Respect to her, she doesn’t try even to defend herself but takes that Henry is angry, as much as it obviously does pain her, but she seems to accept that he has every right to be angry for a while. That is so not spineless. Emma lied, no matter what good reasons she had or told herself she had or might be accepted here as good reasons, Emma lied to Henry about something so important as who his dad is.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
@tombo671 wrote:
I just wanna get this out. But what *(please avoid obscenities)* were Disney thinking giving Leopold the same name as a mass murderer? Anyone that does History would know who I’m referring to.
You are referring to Leopold II of Belgium (1835-1909), whose brutal rule and exploitation of what was called Congo Free State back then lead to the death of millions. Just clearing this up, because I am sure that many never heard of it – despite passable history lessons in school. Frankly, I only know because I always have been interested in history and politics and through contacts with people from Congo in the 90’s, who were fighting the brutal regime of Mobutu. The book by Adam Hochschild from 1998, King Leopold’s Ghost, might have spread the knowledge. But would bet that many still aren’t aware, that Joseph Conrad’s novella Heart of Darkness describes that time in the the Congo (based on his own experience and observations as a captain of a steamer on the Congo River), even if they might have heard of the novella.
Considering that the writers very sure at least heard of Conrad’s novella, it can surprise they chose this name and of all things for Snow’s father. On the other hand Leopold was the name of other rulers as well, particular in Austria, and there in Austria a quite common name, best known maybe Leopold Mozart, the father of the wunderkind Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. But they maybe should do some better research about names, it is an insensitive choice.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
