Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I just got around to reading this.
Fans will have to see what we are doing because it is not the Robin they know. Robin is not coming back from death. This is an entirely new idea. It’s multiple episodes and it’s an arc, but it’s not permanent.”
This makes it sound like something a few of us proposed in Filming thread: the Robin we see is from a different time/universe/page 23/something. He’s a Robin but he’s not THE Robin.
[adrotate group="5"]"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"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"If they chose Gideon for the reasons Matt lists: They better have a good reason why they are 1) doing away with tabula rasa and 2) ignoring the fact that belle is just as much a part of that baby as Dark One Rumple.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"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"If the name isn’t ordinary and not instantly recognizable (Rumple isn’t ordinary but recognizable instantly) then I’m guessing baby Rumbelle isn’t being named after a fairy tale.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"DO they rate DVD / on demand plays too in the rating. I no longer can find +7 day ratings. . .
They do Live +3 and Live +3 still but because they matter so significantly less than Live/Live+ Next Day, they are hard to find. I suspect ABC keeps track of that more closely than Nielsen.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Predictions for tomorrow’s 6×07 “Heartless”?
I’m predicting a slight up tick to a 1.0
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"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"[mod note]
Just a reminder that once this thread reaches 100 pages, Matt or myself will close it and open a “part two”
[/mod note]
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Bad deeds are not undone by good deeds. Nobody, especially victims, should feel obligated to forgive someone who has wronged them.
This is basically my answer to Grimm’s questions. The show’s through line is, more or less, “these people used to do bad things. Now they do good things. Reward them!” Well, no. That’s not exactly how it works. You don’t get a good star for choosing not to kill people today even though it crossed your mind. There’s this idea in OUAT that a single good deed–no matter how major or minor–over turns all the bad without the victims of bad crimes getting a chance to voice their displeasure or to see any sort of atonement. So long as the “bad guy” is in good standing with the rest of the Scooby Gang, then all is right with world but this dismisses some truly heinous actions. Arthur and Gwen are a pretty good example of this. Regina and Rumple and Hook being confronted by their victims in the Underworld, having to look these victims in the eye and atone (and risk the possibility that forgiveness may NOT be granted) would have gone a long way for me. But of course this show is far too concerned with its plot to ever tackle heady topics like this.
And I’ve never said that they should be locked up; that would be ridiculous on a show who’s narrative focuses on a select few. The idea proposed is that redemption comes first and on this show that might be fine but redemption without justice or atonement to the victims seems pretty backwards.
To me its like you are looking at it through the lens of the real word. And it is just a tvshow afterall.
And this bothers me. You basically wrote several paragraphs extolling the virtues of the show’s themes of family, forgiveness and togetherness. All virtues that you find in the real world, but if we try to point out the vices and say how *those* are giving a bad message, suddenly “it’s just a TV show.” Those two sentiments seems pretty antithetical.
If you don’t believe that TV holds up a mirror to society and culture–shows us what we value, what we devalue, and how individuals interact with one another with regards to justice,ethics, race, age, sex, gender, sexual orientation, class ect–then we might be at a crossroads with OUAT and all TV because TV absolutely demonstrates and subverts cultural expectation, either for good or for ill.
I also think it’s really important to note that the dichotomy of virtue vs vice is a false one. OUAT need not be one or the other. It can be a show about family and hope and forgiveness where bad guys get redeemed and *still* have some pretty questionable moral and ethical narrative points about justice and ethics.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"
