Morality in Storybrooke / Social Issues: Threads Combined!

[Rumsy4]

I thought we could use this thread to discuss the moral worldview presented in the Show.

[Rumsy4]

There were a lot of parallels with Elsa running off with the necklace to Hook sailing away with the Bean at the end of S2. And yet, Elsa's heart was pure enough that she was able to wish Anna to Storybrooke, while Hook's decision was seen as purely selfish.

Snow was willing to gamble away the lives of all people in Storybrooke to save Regina, but got all judgey on Elsa, who is really unconnected to anyone there.

When Hook chose the Jolly Roger over Ariel, and it was presented as an outright evil thing. Snow chose to take the Sleeping Curse to save David, and did not execute Regina when she had the chance, thus endangering multiple lives. But those were all presented as heroic choices. And yet, now, with one lecture from Regina, Snow learns how to be a leader and make "tough" choices? I am confused as to what morality the writers are peddling in this Show. It's presented in such black and white terms, but the "right thing" keeps changing with every arc. The relativistic morals in this Show makes it seem more twisted than GoT at times!

[Serena]

I had a tiny rage stroke when Snow and David decided to be "leaders" and let Anna die to save the town. Not because they weren't right... but because of the 222 parallels. I mean, they even had Elsa react like Hook did in the episode... they couldn't MISS the freaking parallels, right? 

I feel like they heard us complaining about how stupid the famous Diner Speech was and this was their way of fixing it. BUT THEY MADE IT WORSE. Like, someone should have at least lampshaded the fact that when it was Regina's life in danger, Snow went all NO WAY.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Serena

[HoodlumSheep]

I don't consider what Elsa did bad enough to darken her heart. I don't really think they get darkness in their hearts for every little "bad" thing they do. Like, they wouldn't get a dark spot because they refused to share a cookie with a little kid, would they?

I feel like you would only ruin a pure heart by murdering, or doing other nasty things.

But yeah, the situation does parallel what happened with Hook, where he gets some blame. Maybe it's because Elsa did it for slightly less selfish reasons (for her sister compared to doing it for herself (like Hook)).

[Mathius]

Also, she was convinced that Anna could save the town. She wasn't actually abandoning them to their fate here like Hook was back in the Season 2 finale.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Mathius

[Shanna Marie]

I feel like they heard us complaining about how stupid the famous Diner Speech was and this was their way of fixing it. BUT THEY MADE IT WORSE. Like, someone should have at least lampshaded the fact that when it was Regina's life in danger, Snow went all NO WAY.

The really awful thing is that the situations aren't even that parallel. The Diner Speech was all about how the whole town should be put at risk to save Regina from the consequences of her own spell. Regina was the one who'd created the failsafe and who got it out with the plan of destroying the whole town and killing everyone but her and Henry. And Snow thought it was wrong for them to not save Regina, even if it risked everyone else. They didn't even have a plan for doing things another way once they lost the bean. It was either let Regina die or let them all die with Regina.

 

Anna was an innocent in this. She wasn't the one who put the town at risk in the first place. Plus, finding her was an alternative way of saving the town. It was either destroy the necklace to create the vaccine and lose all chance of finding Anna or use the necklace to find Anna and then use her to create the vaccine.

 

The way this would have paralleled would be is if Elsa wanted to use the necklace to find and save Ingrid rather than saving the town.

 

Maybe it's because Elsa did it for slightly less selfish reasons (for her sister compared to doing it for herself (like Hook)).

I think that has a lot to do with it. Plus, I think Elsa truly believed that she could save the town by finding Anna. It wasn't a case of "screw the town, I'm saving my sister." It was more like, "If I save my sister, I can save the town, but I can't let them save the town at the expense of my sister."

[KingOfHearts]

This thread is for discussing how OUAT handles social issues, and perhaps what could be improved.

(This is posted in light of the off-topic discussion in the Villains thread.)

Edited December 4, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Faemonic]

Thanks for starting this thread! Are there any premises we need to get straight, specialized vocabulary or verboten verbals, here? Trigger warnings and triggering material under spoiler cut tags? Eh, I guess we can figure that out as we go along.

So, one think I've got: Social Issues in Storybrooke (or Mist Haven) aren't actually social issues in Storybrooke, they're social issues in Viewer World. So, one analysis that I keep tripping over and falling into is: Killian Jones contributes to a culture that allows and encourages the rape of women by men. And I'm sure there are viewers who get rubbed the wrong way by the presence of his character—which they're entitled to, and that there just might be viewers who get rubbed the right way for entirely the wrong reasons—which I wouldn't feel safe busting the bubbles of, but one thing I consider part of the problem is how I feel the fandom, or the Hook-hating part, discourages having a different perspective than either of those groups. (Mine is there's an It's Fiction firewall around a microcosm where gender roles can be re-invented and explored, and Hook is actually the most subversive of a whole lot of harmful gender stereotypes.)

When Jhlipton raised the issue that people of color in this show are handled problematically, I replied that I agreed, "but do we really want to see Kitsis & Horowitz's take on The Ramayana?" — That was not quite fair of me to say, since race isn't necessarily the same thing as ethnic heritage. It's just that my head was at the only non-white character who's lasted more than a few episodes, has a personality, and hasn't died horribly: Mulan, who could have protections from the same sad fates that befell Lancelot, Gus Gus, Tamara, and Cinderella's godmother, (and now Marian) because Mulan's an established Disney princess through the adaptation of a Chinese legend. There might not be a China in Mist Haven, but the role of Mulan cannot be played by Nicola Peltz.

But if Lancelot on this show can be played by Sinqua Walls and he's not even French, then...let's have a main or recurring character who just happens to be played by a person of color. Like, Angel Coulby as Guenivere, unless that becomes some kind of plagiarism. She and Regina can bond over how much it sucks when marriage and romantic love misalign, and the difficulties of reigning as queen that not even Snow really seems to grok. The casting choices of Rapunzel and Marian appear incidentally inclusive, but Rapunzel didn't even recur, and didn't have any real callbacks to Tangled. Rapunzel is as vanilla as Marian, and Marian currently...well, I consider that problematic handling.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Faemonic

[Camera One]

There might not be a China in Mist Haven, but the role of Mulan cannot be played by Nicola Peltz.

 

Ancient China seems to be a stone's throw away from where Grumpy and Belle drank at the tavern, so China is apparently just part of The Enchanted Forest.  We saw Mulan in her "native country" but the story was more about Belle, who ended up saving the day.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Camera One

[The Cake is a Pie]

I'm hoping they can bring on Tiana and Dr. Facilier (sp?) at some point. Not only would that increase diversity, but they also need more male villains on the show. Fairytales are heavily skewed towards female villains.

[SilverShadow]

They've already had Keith David on as the Cheshire Cat in Wodnerland, so it'd eb nifty if they could bring him back to play "his" character. It'd also be the first time a character on Once was played by their original voice actor. 

[Shanna Marie]

I think Anika Noni Rose could also pull off a live-action Tiana. I'd love to see that. I still think she was the most talented of the Dreamgirls movie trio. But I'd be worried about what they'd do with that story. Not that they're necessarily tied to the Disney version (see their take on Rapunzel), but would that mean that there's a Not!New Orleans in the area of the Enchanted Forest, kind of like Arendelle is Not!Norway? And how would the 1920s jazz culture that was pretty essential to the overall vibe of that movie fit in with the general 18th century look/feel of the fairy tale realm?

 

Speaking of representation, it can work in funny ways that's not just about skin color. I'm about the whitest white girl ever, but I probably related more to Tiana than to most Disney princesses because my family's from Louisiana and the way her home life and family were depicted is a lot like the way my parents describe their childhoods. I instantly bonded with her because I felt like I knew her. On the other hand, if Brave had come out when I was a child (and if they'd had the technology in the Dark Ages to depict her hair properly), it would have totally changed my self-image. Even as an adult, I sat through the whole movie saying in awe, "They got the hair right!" That's pretty much the way my hair is, and the Disney princesses and just about every other pop-culture image showed bouncy, smooth hair as the ideal. When they showed someone with hair like mine, it was always the "before" and then her hair would be straightened and smooth when she became beautiful. I held my breath throughout Brave, sure that when Merida learned her valuable lesson and had to become more conventional at the end, her hair would then be tamed. You don't think that something like a movie would really affect the way you see yourself, but when every time you see someone who looks like you on film, that person has to be changed in order to be beautiful, it does a number on you, and it took me a long time to accept my crazy hair as part of who I am.

 

All that to say, diversity and representation go far beyond increasing the range of skin colors that are depicted (though that does need to happen). It can also include traits, world views, cultures within skin colors ("white" really isn't an umbrella label) and a whole host of other things. The cool thing is, when you really do that, it means you get a lot more interesting characters.

[KingOfHearts]

Lost represented many different people very well. I thought it was really cool how they incorporated all kinds of ethnicities and backgrounds, plus show them interacting with each other in different ways. They took advantage of every attribute of every character. Once would be a perfect show for that.

I'd like to see different cultures from the multiverse interact more with each other. They're all kind of blended together at the moment.

[ShadowFacts]

 

Lost represented many different people very well. I thought it was really cool how they incorporated all kinds of ethnicities and backgrounds, plus show them interacting with each other in different ways. They took advantage of every attribute of every character. Once would be a perfect show for that.

 

Lost did do that very well, and I also loved how they flipped stereotypes around.  The Iraqi torturer who learned the trade from American military.  The Korean princess with grit to spare.  The Nigerian warlord with such tenderness for the injured and dead.  The shades of grey in all of them.  I miss that, and don't expect to see anything approaching it hereabouts.

[KingOfHearts]

There was a TV Line article where Ginny answered a question regarding the backlash to Snow's condoning of Regina sleeping with a married Robin Hood. Her answer was that the characters are gray and they're not perfect. This is my response.

 

This show doesn't know how to do "gray". It has a strict standard of Heroes and Villains. It plays with morals in order to fit whatever story they're trying to tell that week. In S1, it portrayed Snow's affair with David as a bad thing. Now when Regina does it in S4, everyone's cool with it. In S2 Snow decided Regina was more important than the whole town, but in S4 with the same situation but a different person, she decides the citizens are top priority. Snow kills Cora and it's shown as a darkening evil act. When Rumple kills Pan, it's a heroic triumph. Then you have Henry, with all his hogwash about whether you're good or evil, and people actually listen to him. Who goes to a kid who has been in therapy for their moral direction? It makes the characters look like idiots. 

 

This show's sense of right and wrong is just hypocritical. It has its Heroes vs. Villains mentality that you dare not go against, but then it changes its own rules depending what the plot needs. Some characters (Regina, Henry and Rumple) are immune, and it's frustrating.

 

(Nothing against Ginny. I'm talking about the show in general, not her.)

Edited December 4, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Serena]

At least she pointed out that she wasn't really "cheating" in S1, since David was actually her husband.

[InsertWordHere]

Oh, now I want to go rewatch LOST.

[Faemonic]

Speaking of representation, it can work in funny ways that's not just about skin color. I'm about the whitest white girl ever, but I probably related more to Tiana than to most Disney princesses because my family's from Louisiana and the way her home life and family were depicted is a lot like the way my parents describe their childhoods. I instantly bonded with her because I felt like I knew her. On the other hand, if Brave had come out when I was a child (and if they'd had the technology in the Dark Ages to depict her hair properly), it would have totally changed my self-image. Even as an adult, I sat through the whole movie saying in awe, "They got the hair right!"

This reminds me when they asked Ginny Goodwin who her favorite Disney princess was, and replied, "Snow White...for the shallowest reason. She was a brunette and I was a brunette." Or something like that. So, yeah, it can apply to something quite small and simple regardless of any Grand Unifying Theory Of Anthropology And Self-Image.

I had the same reaction with Esmeralda. It didn't even register to me that it would be a problem that Esmeralda, in addition to having big dark unruly-looking hair, was adult-bodied and sexy about it, because she wasn't some one-note femme fatale where sexy+female=evil, she was actually angelic at times and the movie was pretty much rooting against Frollo getting his creeper paws on her. And she gets the cute guy that she wants, which might be lookist but at least subverts some undercurrent eddies of sexism.

All that to say, diversity and representation go far beyond increasing the range of skin colors that are depicted (though that does need to happen). It can also include traits, world views, cultures within skin colors ("white" really isn't an umbrella label) and a whole host of other things. The cool thing is, when you really do that, it means you get a lot more interesting characters.

Yeah, Once seems to have done a pick-and-mix with that. I mean... France is Australia.

I guess that the showrunners want to stick with what they know they can be comfortable with, which is rather token minorities to give the appearance of being diverse without much actual exploration of characters played by people of color. They might have, taking a cue from the massive changes in the U.S. around this issue, been comfortable with writing Mulan as not heterosexual, but to show an actual relationship between same-sex people as explicitly as, say, Snow and Charming goofing around in bed, or even True Love's Rainbow Kiss... or, to show actual Chinese people and clothing and customs in Ancient China, Misthaven... would be too big a step for them to handle gracefully, which is too bad, because it's still being part of The Problem if they don't notice, mull over it, and try and take that risk. (Granted, that's easy for me to say as a viewer and not somebody active in the industry having to deal with executive notes and whatnot.)

Edited December 5, 2014 by Faemonic

[Camera One]

There was a TV Line article where Ginny answered a question regarding the backlash to Snow's condoning of Regina sleeping with a married Robin Hood. Her answer was that the characters are gray and they're not perfect. This is my response.

 

They never even had Snow find out what Marion did for her (I really see no reason why she wouldn't have found out from Emma).  If Snow had known Marion's sacrifice and we had actually seen Snow seeking Marion out and thanking her, then she could not have been able to be the cheerleader she was in "Smash the Mirror".

[Mari]

But that was something we actually talked about [while filming] because it was a complicated line for me to say.  .  .

 

 We must have talked about it for 20 minutes, my making that comment to Regina — “Look, I’ve slept with a married man  too” — and we decided that it had to be just a way of my trying to bring her out of her shell, to make her feel safe. It was not to be taken it as literally as it sounded.

 

Taken from the TVLine article.  Part of  Ms. Goodwin's comment about the adultery conversation while they were looking for Emma.

 

Am I missing something?  How was it complicated--from a moral standpoint?  Snow basically used her own victimization to excuse Regina doing something that was wrong.  If  it was not meant to be taken literally, how was it meant to be taken? 

 

And why--please, why--does the show continue to use Regina's victims, as well as her crimes against them, to try and make her look better?  Do they not see how wrong that is?

 

Regina did the magical equivalent of drugging someone and having them do things they would not ordinarily do.  Then, when she does the same thing--undrugged and of her own free will--her victims are supposed to use their experience to make her feel safe and exonerate her, because "they did it, too." 

 

What?

[Camera One]

That extended quote was interesting.  That really sounded like the actress was desperately trying to rationalize why Snow would say such a thing, and so after 20 minutes of discussion (yikes), she decided to say it as if the character didn't mean for it to be literal. That's impressive Goodwin takes the lines so seriously, but sadly, I don't think her interpretation was quite what A&E had in mind.  It was clearly putting Snow down to make Regina look better, an almost repeat of the stuff that was said in "Bleeding Through".  Who knows how many minutes they spent on "You saw how selfish and shallow I was when I was a child".

Edited December 5, 2014 by Camera One

[HoodlumSheep]

That extended quote was interesting. That really sounded like the actress was desperately trying to rationalize why Snow would say such a thing, and so after 20 minutes of discussion (yikes), she decided to say it as if the character didn't mean for it to be literal. That's impressive Goodwin takes the lines so seriously, but sadly, I don't think her interpretation was quite what A&E had in mind.

I wonder if the cast ever discuss lines, etc. with A&E. Ginny said she struggled with the line and discussed it with Lana on how she should treat it, but couldn't she have asked for some guidance/explanation from A&E? Or would that just reflect badly on her part?

[Mari]

The other thing I found interesting was that there was backlash--at least noticeable enough that the interviewer asked about it.  I know I thought it was horrible, both because of content and because of timing, and I know it wasn't joyfully accepted several others commenting here.

 

I did not realize it had been panned elsewhere.  Anybody notice anything apart from our little corner of disgruntle?

[KingOfHearts]

Comparing the Triangle of Doom to the Mary Margaret/David/Kathryn triangle isn't a great idea. The circumstances surrounding one was entirely different from the other. For starters, Snow didn't have an affair with a married man. A synthetic personage named Mary Margaret did. Now Snow may know how it feels since she her body was hijacked by another identity, but that doesn't mean she herself is capable of that. She's not a homewrecker, so trying to make Regina "feel safe" by claiming to be one in the past just doesn't click for me. She's basically putting herself down in order to suit Regina's feelings.

 

Also, Kathryn wasn't on her deathbed. Mary Margaret was under the impression that David was going to break up with her. Robin Hood doesn't seem to have any intention of divorcing Marian. It's like Snow doesn't even care about her or Roland. "Go steal husbands! It's fine! If I can do it, so can you!"

 

I find the irony here is that Emma said to MM, "Don't get involved with a married guy. It's not worth the heartache", and she was the one night stand person. Yet Snow White, Ms. Pure of Heart, says just the opposite. That's messed up.

Edited December 5, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

I know I thought it was horrible, both because of content and because of timing, and I know it wasn't joyfully accepted several others commenting here.

I did not realize it had been panned elsewhere.  Anybody notice anything apart from our little corner of disgruntle?

 

It was one of those cases where I think the stars aligned.  Normally, no one outside here cares a whit if Snow is given horrible character-assassination lines propping Regina, but in this case, Snow was given a line condoning Outlaw Queen which would have angered those who shipped Regina with others.  Thus, the "backlash"?

Edited December 5, 2014 by Camera One

[stealinghome]

That extended quote was interesting.  That really sounded like the actress was desperately trying to rationalize why Snow would say such a thing, and so after 20 minutes of discussion (yikes), she decided to say it as if the character didn't mean for it to be literal. That's impressive Goodwin takes the lines so seriously, but sadly, I don't think her interpretation was quite what A&E had in mind.

Oh, I'm sure that was not how Adam and Eddie meant it, and that that was what Goodwin had to tell herself to say it. (Honestly, I think Goodwin and Dallas and Morrison OFTEN have to rationalize their lines to themselves.) The problem is that, despite Goodwin's best efforts, there's really no way to spin that line positively. I appreciate her for trying, but yeah, no, no way to make that line work.

 

It was one of those cases where I think the stars aligned.  Normally, no one outside here cares a whit if Snow is given horrible character-assassination lines propping Regina, but in this case, Snow was given a line condoning Outlaw Queen which would have angered those who shipped Regina with others.  Thus, the "backlash"?

Honestly, it may also be a case where having Snow White say "adultery is okay" is a little too far even for a casual viewer, or a person who isn't super invested in Snow.

 

It's like the reverse of even a lot of Regina stans admitting Regina was OTT bitchy and horrible in 4x05. This may have been a case where even non- (or anti-)Snow White stans were like "yeah, no, Snow White doesn't say shit like that."

[KingOfHearts]

 

 

Honestly, it may also be a case where having Snow White say "adultery is okay" is a little too far even for a casual viewer, or a person who isn't super invested in Snow.

It's like the reverse of even a lot of Regina stans admitting Regina was OTT bitchy and horrible in 4x05. This may have been a case where even non- (or anti-)Snow White stans were like "yeah, no, Snow White doesn't say shit like that."

This is probably the case. But I don't even think the Snow White on Once would say that. Since it was about Regina, morals and continuity got thrown out the window just so her actions could be condoned. If it were anyone else, Snow would be side-eyeing it. It's because of Regina, and that's it. Why did Snow change her mind about Emma losing her powers? Regina. Why did Snow decide the many outweight the few? Regina. It all circles back to her.

 

Regina is one big insatiable black hole. The writers will blend physics around her.

Edited December 5, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[KAOS Agent]

Honestly, it may also be a case where having Snow White say "adultery is okay" is a little too far even for a casual viewer, or a person who isn't super invested in Snow.

 

This is it. There are a lot of evil deeds done on this show, but it's often done in a magical way. We don't see blood and gore and pain, so it's more fantasy and "acceptable" to a viewer. There are also supposedly points about good and evil, although that is often seriously skewed. However, there is really no way to make adultery acceptable. This isn't a magical or fantasy issue. It's a real world problem. It's Robin breaking his vows to a woman who gave up everything to be with him and who actually died to protect the woman who is now advocating for her killer to get it on with the husband. That's not romantic. It's not some moral gray area. It's just straight up wrong and most people aren't going to be comfortable with it. There's also the major problem that this isn't some random guy and his wife. It's Robin Hood cheating on Maid Marian. Snow White would never give that her stamp of approval. It's just stupid and it's obvious that both Ginny and probably Lana too were confused as to what the hell the writers were thinking.

Edited December 5, 2014 by KAOS Agent

[Minneapple]

A. Kudos to Ginny for actually remembering the writing on her own show. Since, you know, the writers can't be bothered with silly details like that.

 

B. Can you imagine getting material like that and taking 20 minutes to try and figure out how the fuck to reconcile the lines with your character? "Uh, yeah...this makes no sense...how can I make this make sense?" I give Ginny credit for her professionalism and not slamming the writers by being all, "Well, the writing's crap, what can you do."

 

C. That said, no, Ginny, there's no grey area in this situation. Regina was a straight-up villain who killed people. Now she's sleeping with a married man. Where's the grey area?

[Jean]

I'm going to give the writers a pass on this one. After all if they can get some of the audience to go "aww poor Woegina why can't she ever be happy without someone ruining it" after slaughtering entire villages, I'd side-eye the "backlash" at adultery too. So mass murder deserves sympathy and hugs but the line in the sand is adultery? I don't blame them for thinking they could get away with murder and therefore anything else under the sun at this point.

Now I get your point Kaos about fantasy vs realistic crimes or issues and agree with it to a certain point but I think there's been some close scenarios. The kid Owen/Greg one for example. If the response to that was poor Woegina and her big crocodile tears, screw that bratty selfish 4 year old crybaby, why wouldn't they think it's a free for all?

[Minneapple]

In this case it's not so much about the adultery itself as it is about Snow condoning it -- and using her own non-adultery "adultery" to make it okay. See, that's the issue with Regina. The writers twist the other characters into idiots to make her actions okay.

[Jean]

Oh ok that is an important distinction.

That makes it even worse. Because once again the black hole skates free and someone else is left holding her poop bag.

I didn't watch the adultery talk scene myself but I read enough to get the gist from this board. From what I read it sounds exactly like the Bleeding Through talk. Where black hole goes "it's complicated my mom killed your mom" and Snow goes "I murdered your mom and I was such a brat." (Notice the soul sucker killing Snow's dad wasn't even touched upon). Well wasn't Snow condoning her own mom's murder then? By bringing up her own crime to make it seem like Cora's was ok? Was there backlash then over the condoning of murder? I mean they sound like the same conversation to me. But I could be wrong since I didn't see the latter.

[Camera One]

You probably wanted to avoid the pain of watching it, but here is the dialogue if you can stomach it...

 

Regina: Well, it's easy for you to say.  You're a hero.  Whenever you need help, it just magically shows up, like Henry's book.
Snow: Yeah, I think that when you do good, the universe takes care of you. That's why it showed up.
Regina: Well, it doesn't really matter why. Your wishes are rewarded. Mine are crushed.
Snow: Well, I refuse to believe that happiness is impossible for you to achieve.  You've come too far.  And, yes, you may be sleeping with a married man, but guess what so have I.
Regina: Well, I've done far worse than that.
Snow: Which doesn't mean that you can't earn forgiveness, a chance at grace.
Regina: If you do good hoping to be redeemed, is that really good? Maybe evil is born And that's just who I am.
Snow: Regina you saw me grow up.  You know how selfish and shallow I could be as a child.  You know what I've done since.  You have literally seen my heart.  You know it's not untouched.  You are not all evil, and I'm not all good.  Things are not that simple.

Regina:  Well, whoever's guiding all this seems to think it is. You're the hero, and I'm the villain. Free will be damned. It's all in the book. And we both know how it plays out.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Camera One

[stealinghome]

I didn't watch the adultery talk scene myself but I read enough to get the gist from this board. From what I read it sounds exactly like the Bleeding Through talk. Where black hole goes "it's complicated my mom killed your mom" and Snow goes "I murdered your mom and I was such a brat." (Notice the soul sucker killing Snow's dad wasn't even touched upon). Well wasn't Snow condoning her own mom's murder then? By bringing up her own crime to make it seem like Cora's was ok? Was there backlash then over the condoning of murder? I mean they sound like the same conversation to me. But I could be wrong since I didn't see the latter.

I don't disagree, but I also think people are really funny about sex. It's like with movies--kids can see all sorts of violence, blood, and gore, but heaven forbid the movie show a little skin! So I'm not surprised that it's a conversation about sex that people are responding to as opposed to Regina's violent crimes and murders, etc. The heightened attitude toward sex is, imo, also why the show tries so hard to avoid calling Regina a rapist. Genocide and mass murder can be forgiven by the fans, but calling her a rapist would put her in a special loathed category all her own. So the show pretends she's not a rapist. (And--while I agree that the morality on this show is fifty shades of screwed up and selectively applied--generally speaking, I think the show usually comes down on the side of "murder equals bad." Which is something we can all agree to. Its morality isn't usually so brazenly out of whack as with "adultery is totally cool!")

 

I also do think this situation is a little bit different because there's just no way to spin Marian as a bad guy in this situation. With Snow killing Cora and whatever, if I squint, I can kind of understand why people would see that they're "even" or wtfever. I deeply disagree, of course, but I can see where people are coming from (and the conversation in 'Bleeding Through' was selectively edited to not give the full story, of course). Whereas there's no way the show, despite its best efforts, can spin Marian as anything other than a victim--they've even had Regina several times bring up the fact that she's Robin's wife--who's done nothing hurtful to either Robin or Regina. So when Snow says "no man, adultery's totally cool," there's no "offsetting crime," for lack of a better term, no justification the show can offer. There's nothing Regina can say that can come across as "well, she deserved it." So we're just left with a blanket approval of adultery against an innocent woman.

Edited December 5, 2014 by stealinghome

[Rumsy4]

Honestly, I think most of the vocal complaints originate from disgruntled SQ fans who keep complaining about "adultery queen" in every platform. And in this case, it so happened to be something the interviewer agreed with. I also think that Snow cheering on the fact that Robin is cheating on a frozen Maid Marian is a little too icky for even casual viewers to ignore.

[ShadowFacts]

 

Snow: Yeah, I think that when you do good, the universe takes care of you. That's why it showed up.

 

Ugh, I didn't hear this line.  It's some of that Oprah-style "The Secret" horse poo.  No, the universe does not take care of people who do good.  Sometimes the universe rains misery on people who do good.  Snow must be watching Oprah.  But not Dr. Phil, because he wouldn't be down with Regina's morality, nor wanting to make her feel "safe". 

[Faemonic]

Snow must be watching Oprah.

This show has some patchwork worldbuilding, but Neal did establish in his bar talk with Emma in Manhattan that, according to Rumple, there is a force of Fate that Makes Things Happen That Are Supposed To Happen. Whether "Supposed To" means it's good that Neal left Emma and let her go to prison because Pinnocchio told him to... ugh, no, that does mean it was Good or at least Okay, doesn't it? And the Universe took care of Neal. Like, in the organized crime syndicate way of "taking care" of somebody. That, or Neal did a Bad thing by enacting a dark magic ritual where the price of magic was his own life, but then he died a hero because he was willing to give his life so that Rumple could think straight and reveal Zelena's identity so bleargh I don't know anymore.

[Serena]

It's stupid because the universe so did NOT take care of Snow, who did good. Compared to Regina, they both lost their parents. Their True Loves are both alive, and they both have to overcome obstacles, specifically in the form of another woman, to be with them. They both have children they love. The difference is that Snow, who did good, did not get to raise her daughter, while Regina, who did unspeakable evil, did get to raise her son. So I call bullshit on that. 

[regularlyleaded]

It's stupid because the universe so did NOT take care of Snow, who did good. Compared to Regina, they both lost their parents. Their True Loves are both alive, and they both have to overcome obstacles, specifically in the form of another woman, to be with them. They both have children they love. The difference is that Snow, who did good, did not get to raise her daughter, while Regina, who did unspeakable evil, did get to raise her son. So I call bullshit on that. 

And not to mention Emma's whole life flies in the face of Snow's mamby-pamby remark. I can't fathom what an infant Emma or three year old Emma could've done to merit being repeatedly abandoned (by August, then the Swans) and to go on living an entire life of neglect, loneliness and even more betrayal. Contrary to Snow's outlook on life, shit happens to everyone. Whether you deserve it or not. It's just that Regina is too selfish, self-involved, and narcissistic to realize that. 

 

This show has some patchwork worldbuilding, but Neal did establish in his bar talk with Emma in Manhattan that, according to Rumple, there is a force of Fate that Makes Things Happen That Are Supposed To Happen.

Douchefire said that BS about "Fate" " because he was a chicken shit asshole who couldn't own up to the fact that he stabbed Emma in the back and left her to take a fall for his shit, and all because he didn't want to see his father. That's it. "Fate" didn't make him do anything. He had a choice. August actually said to him (paraphrasing) "I'm gonna tell you a story and then you'll have to make choice."

 

Douchefire saying something like "Oh, it was Fate" was just him trying to give himself an excuse for being a douchebag coward. Just because Rumple says some stupid line about fate once and his d-bag son repeats it doesn't make it an established fact. The only thing they've established is that the Stiltskins are a bunch of cowardly douchebags and that they are too spineless to admit it. If anything, the show has established that it's not Fate. You have a choice. It's just that, generally, with shitty characters like Neal and Regina that the writers use the "Oh, it was Fate" card because they can't think of an actually valid reason for all the crappy things they've done (because no such reason exists) so they whitewash it all away and blame "Fate" or an elusive storybook author.

 

Neal and Regina and the writers screaming "I had no choice" , "Oh, it was Fate!", "The storybook made me a villain!" at the top of their lungs doesn't change the fact it's all a metric ton of horse shit.

Edited December 5, 2014 by regularlyleaded

[Dani-Ellie]

No matter how loud Neal and Regina and the writers scream "I had no choice" , "Oh, it was Fate!", "The storybook made me a villain!" doesn't change the fact that that is all a metric ton of horse shit.

 

Especially considering the whole point of the season three finale was that the future is not written. If it were, the storybook would have filled itself in around Emma interrupting her parents' first meeting. If Snow and Charming were fated to meet, Emma and Hook wouldn't have needed to concoct a scheme to get them in each other's orbits again. "Fate" is an excuse, and "the universe takes care of you" is Oscar Mayer.

 

These people are making choices. Regina is choosing to ignore what she has in this chase after some perfect unending happiness, but it's a fool errand because that perfect unending happiness does not exist. Regina is choosing to ignore the fact that she victimized all these people and they are being far nicer to her than she warrants. Regina is choosing to hide behind "this author made me a villain" without recognizing that she made herself a villain.

 

And honestly, I wouldn't even mind Regina's skewed view of reality if the other characters were allowed to call her on her bullshit. If the show didn't present her skewed view of reality as actual reality. If, as Regina's stomping around berating Emma for ruining her life, Emma had gotten to holler back, "You want to talk about life-ruining, lady?!" If the other characters were allowed to be all, "You know what, Regina? You're wrong, and the only one who can change your path is you."

 

But they're not and it's creating this ass-backwards world where the victims apologize to their abusers and the abuser gets away with everything and still wants more. Which is the exact opposite of a fairy tale, where good is supposed to defeat evil.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Dani-Ellie

[Shanna Marie]

It's stupid because the universe so did NOT take care of Snow, who did good. Compared to Regina, they both lost their parents. Their True Loves are both alive, and they both have to overcome obstacles, specifically in the form of another woman, to be with them. They both have children they love. The difference is that Snow, who did good, did not get to raise her daughter, while Regina, who did unspeakable evil, did get to raise her son.

That's what's so insane about this whole storyline. The good people have had worse lives than the evil people. Rumple did lose his son, but he has Belle believing he's wonderful and willingly marrying him, he's wealthy, and he has superpowers. Regina's wealthy and lives in comfort, her son loves her in spite of the way she treated him, and she was running the town before she quit because she had a sad. Meanwhile, the good guys are crammed together in a hovel and will always have a screwed up family relationship because Snow and David didn't get to raise Emma and Emma grew up alone.

 

The key difference between the good guys and the bad guys is that the good guys make the best of the situations they're in, which is what makes their endings happier. If Snow had been Regina, when she was kicked out of her own home after her father's murder, she'd have spent a lot of time feeling sorry for herself, then would have gone on a vengeance spree that made everyone hate her (which is what she did after Daniel's death). Snow wrote a letter of apology, then made friends with Red and focused on helping Red deal with her difficult situation, then later made friends with the dwarfs, and soon managed to build a network of allies. Her ending was happier than Regina's because of the way she responded to her circumstances and the way she held onto hope and looked out for others, even though her own situation was difficult.

 

The only person who could have given Regina the "hey, sleeping with a married person doesn't mean you're evil" speech without all kinds of ick attached to it is Hook, since his relationship with a married person had nothing to do with Regina and since Regina hasn't (yet) deliberately done worse sabotage to any relationship he's been in than was done accidentally to her. But even there, Hook and Milah weren't fooling around behind Rumple's back while she pretended to be honorable and while he was under a spell, Milah actually told her spouse that she was unhappy and then left rather than trying to have it both ways, and Rumple had done more to make her unhappy than not dying (I guess that is sort of what triggered her unhappiness, but it was more about the way he didn't die and then the way that affected their lives rather than about how the fact that he existed interrupted her other plans).

[KAOS Agent]

The storybook plotline completely confuses me. Are they saying fate forces us to do what we do? Regina didn't choose to flee that tavern on her own? She has no free will in choosing to engage in an affair with a married man? Or are they saying that no matter what choice Regina makes with regards to Robin right now, fate will inevitably take him away from her because she's a villain, so who cares whether she chooses the noble path and stays away from him or whether they have endless crypt sex?

 

If fate (or the author) is all powerful and predetermined, then there is no point in going with the moral choice. It's better to take the selfish path because the consequences are already a forgone conclusion. That's a pretty terrible message to send. It would then appear that the only reason to make the "right" but perhaps more painful choice is to make yourself feel better or to assuage your own conscience.

[Curio]

If fate (or the author) is all powerful and predetermined, then there is no point in going with the moral choice. It's better to take the selfish path because the consequences are already a forgone conclusion. That's a pretty terrible message to send.

 

Don't tell that to John Calvin...

 

Actually, if Adam & Eddy end up making the author a real person, that'd be a pretty on the nose name for him.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Curio

[Mari]

If the show didn't present her skewed view of reality as actual reality. If, as Regina's stomping around berating Emma for ruining her life, Emma had gotten to holler back, "You want to talk about life-ruining, lady?!" If the other characters were allowed to be all, "You know what, Regina? You're wrong, and the only one who can change your path is you."

 

But they're not and it's creating this ass-backwards world where the victims apologize to their abusers and the abuser gets away with everything and still wants more. Which is the exact opposite of a fairy tale, where good is supposed to defeat evil.

You're absolutely right.  While individual characters have each done things that are more immoral than this, I think as a show whole, this attitude is probably the most immoral thing about Once Upon a Time.

 

Continually framing the people--most noticeably with Regina--who do evil as victims when they do not get their way, and painting anyone who stops them, or crosses them in minor ways, as someone who ruined Regina's life and therefore brought all her wrath justifiably down upon them?  It's horribly wrong.

 

What's the most evil thing about Once isn't Regina.  It's the way even minor slights or accidents are treated as horrific, and a good reason for Regina to be awful.  It's moving the theme of Once from "Good always wins." to "If you're not willing to destroy the people you don't like, you deserve however you're treated."

[Featherhat]

The way they twist fairytales around there's absolutely no reason why they shouldn't have Mulan and Aurora end up together. Fuck, you had Mulan in love with Phillip.

 

LOST was fine on diversity, but I guess the writers see that as the difference between an international plane crash and largely white "beloved" (money making) cartoons. Not that they can't change that up lie they've changed so many things but it seems like its half hearted in this regard. Partly I guess is that they need an approximation in the same Disney dress at least once to keep the Disney synergy going. (All the time if you're Elsa and the best selling Halloween/Christmas princess dress ever etc). I would love if they bring in Tiana. I think she'd fit in well for an episode or arc.

 

 

 

, to show actual Chinese people and clothing and customs in Ancient China, Misthaven... would be too big a step for them to handle gracefully, which is too bad, because it's still being part of The Problem if they don't notice, mull over it, and try and take that risk. (Granted, that's easy for me to say as a viewer and not somebody active in the industry having to deal with executive notes and whatnot.)

 

Having Chinese actors yes, having actual ancient Chinese customs is probably asking too much of this show, and even the "source" Mulan movie is a very, very far cry from the original source of her story, IIRC its ending is basically the opposite.

 

As viewers I think its great to say what we hope might come up, even if no one from the network will read it because Hollywood execs *and* writers spend a lot of time hiding behind the shield of "oh well of course we'd love to but viewers are haters, watcha gonna do?"

Edited December 5, 2014 by Featherhat

[Faemonic]

I guess the writers see that as the difference between an international plane crash and largely white "beloved" (money making) cartoons. Not that they can't change that up like they've changed so many things but it seems like its half hearted in this regard. 

Yeah, Rapunzel could have been more, but it seems almost like it was because she wouldn't play more of a part that they could cast people of color who were royalty. (The Sultanate of Agrabah in the spinoff notwithstanding.)

 

Still, there's Mowgli, Tiger Lily, Pocahontas, Jasmine, Esmeralda, Tiana...

 

Outside of Disney, there's fairy tales that wouldn't necessarily be culturally appropriative. Hans Christian Andersen's The Nightingale was set in China. I can imagine Shang being the Cavalier, genderswapped or not.

 

Calling it now: Scheherazade or Dinarzade authored Henry's fairy tale book. If Antoine Galland can spin and tweak The Arabian Nights, then those girls can muck about with Western fairy tales.

 

While I predicted that The Ramayana could be...volatile...after being processed in the Once Upon A Time writers' room, Haroun and the Sea of Stories would fit right into this show. (Unless it got A&E a fatwa on their heads for glorifying the work of an infidel unrelated to the work that got a fatwa on Salman Rusdie's head, in which case, err...on the side of caution. But there's so much whimsy! And Haroun's mother left him! I would watch the hues out of Once Upon a Time in Kahani.)

 

Having Chinese actors yes, having actual ancient Chinese customs is probably asking too much of this show, and even the "source" Mulan movie is a very, very far cry from the original source of her story, IIRC its ending is basically the opposite.

 

Fairy Tale Land has corsets and slashed sleeves and castles with turrets and parapets, though. It just doesn't seem fair to never have any Middle Kingdom influenced aesthetics ever, even if Mulan is just traveling. I can understand if for the episode with her and Belle, Belle had a book of Chinese writing (that she knows how to read for some reason), Maleficent decided to turn Philip into a Chinese monster for fun, and Mulan was just traveling. I'd still be disappointed if that's all we ever got, though.

 

Although...as far as worldbuilding goes, I suppose the first thing I should expect, before coded cultural diversity, is a sensible magic system in the show bible. That's probably never going to happen, either.

[Jean]

Having Chinese actors yes, having actual ancient Chinese customs is probably asking too much of this show, and even the "source" Mulan movie is a very, very far cry from the original source of her story

Well Jamie Chung is not even Chinese, she's Korean American so there's that.

people of color in this show are handled problematically,

To be fair the "white" characters are handled problematically too. A&E's equal opportunity shitty writing. About the only good thing you can say the white characters gets more of is airtime.

[Faemonic]

Well Jamie Chung is not even Chinese, she's Korean American so there's that. To be fair the "white" characters are handled problematically too. A&E's equal opportunity shitty writing. About the only good thing you can say the white characters gets more of is airtime.

The air time is the thing, though. There is no equal-opportunity bad writing if there is no equal opportunity time for equal-opportunity diversity of characters to be written badly in. Basically, it's less likely that people will get some underlying sentiment from this show that Scotsmen are evil, or Jewish women are martyrs, or Australians enable and reward abusive behavior, than people are to get the sentiment that people of color on this show aren't as worthy of consideration in the stories they play out...because they're people of color. Note that this isn't a matter of authorial intent or psychological complexes of individual viewers, but an observation of the patterns that have been established in-show.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Faemonic

[Rumsy4]

This is being discussed in the Relationships thread, but fits here as well. Anna's sudden declaration that she would never give up on Ingrid because she was family seemed sudden and out of place. So just because she had read her mother's letter, Anna changed her mind about Ingrid? She was happy enough to de-magic her or trap her in the Urn back in Arendelle. Besides, that kind of morality is what makes Henry, Belle, Snow, and Emma look stupid when it comes to villains. So, the implication is that if Ingrid had not been family, Anna would not have shown her that compassion and understanding. All in all, that was an ambiguous moral lesson presented in the episode.

[Camera One]

Yeah, that was a bit weird. Anna seemed strangely paranoid and suspicious too.  She was wary of Ingrid right away way back when, which made Ingrid immediately gun for her.  She even asked Elsa if Emma could be trusted.  Which is all well and good, and maybe this is a result of her being burned by being too trusting with Hans.  But it clashes a little bit with her supposed positivity.  

Edited December 9, 2014 by Camera One