Morality in Storybrooke / Social Issues: Threads Combined!

[Camera One]

Like, they bring in Hansel and Gretel to show how the families of the peasants were also torn apart

 

They brought in Hansel and Gretel because they wanted to do Hansel and Gretel, and they were using them as a vehicle to show Emma's connection with orphans and as a vehicle to show the delicious Evil Queen.  I'm not sure "the peasants' lives were torn apart" even went into their thought processes.

 

Maybe some writers thought it would be cool if Snowing and the War Council went to actual war and killed people, whereas other writers thought to play up the fairy tale aspect where the designated good guys don't kill anybody or it's a Big Deal when Snow does

 

They were stuck having to show "winning the kingdoms back" so they showed it very minimally, vague enough that the "war" could have involved shipping off George and Regina's captured soldiers to a mass prison camp, and the policy was to wound but not kill.  It was likely on another day entirely that they decided they would add angst and drama by having Snow kill Cora (heck, they're *still* getting mileage out of that).  I seriously doubt they sit there comparing and contrasting the morality of different events they wrote.  They couldn't care less about the regular citizens, which is reflected that they don't bother writing the heroes and protectors of the town care about them.  It's all an afterthought.  I seriously doubt they put any thought into why Granny and the Dwarves decided they didn't need to be locked up, except to provide some oh-so-funny scenes on Main Street.

[Camera One]

Think of the fallout if Snow had told Regina instead of Anna that she didn't regret killing Cora. Now that would've been interesting.

 

So does this make Snow as morally bad as Regina, since she doesn't regret killing Cora?  Is this actually true, or was it supposed to be funny?

[SilverShadow]

I think there was a bit of truth to it. I think Snow feels bad that she killed Cora, particularity in an underhanded way that made Regina actually deliver the final blow, but I don't think she's sorry at all Cora's now dead.

[KAOS Agent]

What's more moral killing someone in self defense or allowing that person to kill you and your entire family (plus a bunch of innocent townsfolk) because you're a hero and heroes don't kill? 

[ImNotBatman]

I think there was a bit of truth to it. I think Snow feels bad that she killed Cora, particularity in an underhanded way that made Regina actually deliver the final blow

I don't think it was underhanded but smart. Nothing like getting your enemies to take each other out. Effective and efficient. Regina had previously planned to kill Cora (and thought she had killed her), so the irony of killing Cora now was delicious. I salute Snow for what she did. That the show writers see it as evil or underhanded is gross and makes you wonder what they would do if someone broke into their house and threatened the lives of them and their family -- sit down on the floor and ask for a quick death because that would be the nice thing to do?

[Camera One]

Well said, ImNotBatman.

 

What's more moral killing someone in self defense or allowing that person to kill you and your entire family (plus a bunch of innocent townsfolk) because you're a hero and heroes don't kill?

 

Yeah, I think most of us agree that Snow did the right thing.  The question is more regarding what is actually new from 4A, why the writers had her say to Anna that she did not regret killing Cora, since she has never expressed that before.  Was Snow being insincere when she apologized to Regina?  Was this meant to be funny?   Was it meant to be what Snow really felt inside?   Is the line supposed to mean anything, or is it just a throwaway?

[SilverShadow]

I don't think it was underhanded but smart. Nothing like getting your enemies to take each other out. Effective and efficient. Regina had previously planned to kill Cora (and thought she had killed her), so the irony of killing Cora now was delicious. I salute Snow for what she did. That the show writers see it as evil or underhanded is gross and makes you wonder what they would do if someone broke into their house and threatened the lives of them and their family -- sit down on the floor and ask for a quick death because that would be the nice thing to do?

 

I'm not at all judging Snow for killing Cora. It was a tight spot and this woman killed her mother and a woman who seemed to have become a surrogate mother of sorts, or at least dear old friend.  But in that moment she played on Regina's emotions about her mother and her own reputation as a 'hero' to get the outcome she needed. So yeah, I'm comfortable using the word 'underhanded,' because the plan relied on manipulation and deceit, however justified her actions were. (And they were very very justified.)

 

I'm still kind of bummed the idea of Snow getting a taste of the dark side was so nonsensical and then dropped completely. Regina's always complaining that heroes are too soft, but I wonder how she'd react if she got exactly what she asked for, and the Snow started playing hardball the way she and the villains have, with no excuses or apologies, even if it was only temporary. I'm pretty sure she'd be wishing for Snow to go back to her old self in about five minutes.

[ImNotBatman]

But to label it as “underhanded” is a judgement. It attaches a connotation that says, “sure she was justified in killing Cora, but doing it like that is bad”. As if another path that arrives at a dead Cora is better than another. Dead is dead.

 

Had Snow, Regina and Cora engaged in a sword fight it would’ve involved feints and parries. Feints are a deception. So had Snow killed Cora using a feint in a sword fight would that still be "underhanded" and therefore bad? I think not. A feint used in a sword fight is considered skillful and smart, but a feint used in a battle of the wits (where you life is equally at stake as a sword fight) is “underhanded”? Ridiculous. Using your intelligence in self-defense isn’t underhanded, and using one enemy (who is out to kill you and your family) to kill the other enemy (who is also out to kill you and your family) is excellent use of intelligence and great on your feet thinking.

Edited February 17, 2015 by ImNotBatman

[Camera One]

I would consider Snow's move to be more underhanded if she actually had a viable choice and still chose that route.  But when she was caught red-handed in the crypt with the heart, there was no alternative.  Even if she tried to open the box and grab Cora's heart and control it, Regina would have flung her across the room in a minute flat.  It was that, or Dark Cora killing everyone.  That whole "the hard way" was BS.  And now that we know (thanks to 4B) that it is possible to enchant a heart so someone holding it is NOT able to control you.  There's no way Cora wouldn't have done that.  

[KAOS Agent]

 

Was Snow being insincere when she apologized to Regina?  Was this meant to be funny?   Was it meant to be what Snow really felt inside?   Is the line supposed to mean anything, or is it just a throwaway?

 

Technically, one could say that Snow apologized to Regina for using her as the weapon to kill her mother. She could very easily feel bad about that without feeling horrible about the ultimate outcome. Really nothing that was said during the spell in Storybrooke makes sense. Am I supposed to believe that Snow truly hates the idea that she had a child with David?  Or that David worries that Snow still has a thing for the doctor and the kid could be Whale's? 

[Camera One]

Yeah, good point.  So basically all that Shattered Sight stuff they said was pointless.  No surprise there, LOL.

[KingOfHearts]

I'm getting meta here, but the writers purposely backed her into a corner so she'd get a dark heart and her feud with Regina would be reignited. We're told by characters that there were other choices, but there really wasn't. It could have been a heroic moment for Snow, but they played it out as murder. If they would have shown us these harder paths, maybe I would have bought that she was acting on her anger instead of doing the logical thing. As usual what was on screen was a far cry from what was actually said.

The execution was a hot mess. It wasn't a good moment for Snow at all because of the portrayal. It was the catalyst for the awful 2B catastrophe. It's like the Echo Cave speech - it wasn't bad a thing in of itself, but it started something we're still paying the price for.

Edited February 17, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

Of the major megavillains so far, Snow is the only "hero" who got to kill one but she didn't get to do it heroically with the viewers cheering on.  The entire thing was framed as a "Poor Regina" moment.

[Crimson Belle]

I think like many things on this show, the writers wrote it one way, bit I think the vast majority by far definitely were cheering her on.

[Dani-Ellie]

I certainly cheered her on. And no matter how much the season three finale ended on Poor Regina, I cheered on Emma saving a woman's life and reuniting a family.

 

(Basically, I have no sympathy for Regina and no matter how much the show tries to shove sympathy for Regina down my throat, I'm not going to change my mind.)

[SilverShadow]

But to label it as “underhanded” is a judgement. It attaches a connotation that says, “sure she was justified in killing Cora, but doing it like that is bad”. As if another path that arrives at a dead Cora is better than another. Dead is dead.

 

 

Here is the actual definition of the word "underhanded" from freedictionary.com

 

 

1. Acting or done in a deceptive, secret, or sly manner; dishonest and sneaky

 

Snow intended to decieve. Check. She lied. Check. It was also quite sneaky to trick Regina that way. That is a factual description of what she did and how she did it. I think Snow, with the information she had at the time, made the best call she could in a bad situation, and I resent being told I'm judging her because of a word that is a literal descriptor of her actions, when I have said flat out, "I'm not at all judging Snow for killing Cora."

 

I will say it again: It was underhanded. And awesome.

 

YMMV but please don't police my word choices and say you know what I mean better than I do.

[YaddaYadda]

What Snow did wasn't even morally ambiguous.  She did what she had to do under the circumstances.  So we have Gold who is a mellow Dark One vs Cora who would turn the town to rubble and kill everyone once she became the Dark One, starting with Snow and her family.  Keeping Gold around was the lesser of two evils and I don't care how she did it.

[myril]

Snow felt ambiguous about how she did what she did. It might have been objectively the right thing to do, to make sure that Cora couldn't succeed with her plans, but it still meant to take a person's life. Never ever should IMO anyone under no circumstance feel okay about taking a person's life. Taking a life is something very serious, and despite that the writers didn't know to make any of it, I found it good even,that Snow herself was conflicted about it. A person can do the right thing and still feel bad about it. It makes to me a hero a lot more sympathetic and relatable if they don't make taking a life ever an easy thing "just" because it was justifiable. They do what they have to do eventually but don't do a happy dance about it.

[Dani-Ellie]

It makes to me a hero a lot more sympathetic and relatable if they don't make taking a life ever an easy thing "just" because it was justifiable. They do what they have to do eventually but don't do a happy dance about it.

 

This. I liked that Snow was torn up about it, but I also think she did what she had to do because it was kill or be killed and you can bet I cheered for her. I just hate that the show/some fans have boiled it down to "Snow's no better than Regina now because she's taken a life, too." Intent and circumstances matter. Regina killed innocent people because she could. Snow killed someone who was an immediate threat to her and her family. And she used Regina to do it because what the hell else could she have done once Regina caught her? I don't believe she ever intended, out of malice, to use Regina to kill Cora. But does anyone really think Regina would have let Snow walk out of that vault if Snow told the truth? So again, kill or be killed.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Dani-Ellie

[ImNotBatman]

Here is the actual definition of the word "underhanded" from freedictionary.com

 

 

Snow intended to decieve. Check. She lied. Check. It was also quite sneaky to trick Regina that way. That is a factual description of what she did and how she did it. I think Snow, with the information she had at the time, made the best call she could in a bad situation, and I resent being told I'm judging her because of a word that is a literal descriptor of her actions, when I have said flat out, "I'm not at all judging Snow for killing Cora."

 

I will say it again: It was underhanded. And awesome.

 

YMMV but please don't police my word choices and say you know what I mean better than I do.

I think you should spend more time reading my original post. I said that the word “underhanded” can carry a negative connotation — connotation (oh look, I can use a dictionary too!): something suggested or implied by a word or thing, rather than being explicitly named or described.

 

Being “underhanded” carries the connotation of being unfair, corrupt or hitting below the belt, and just “bad”. So do I think what Snow did was unfair, corrupt, or hitting below the belt, or “bad”? No, I don’t think it was, and therefore, I don’t consider Snow’s actions “underhanded”. That’s why I think calling Snow’s actions “underhanded” carries with it a value judgement — because of the negative connotations. So whether you intended to judge Snow or not, it’s my opinion that calling her actions ”underhanded” is a judgement — again whether that is your intention or not, conscious or unconscious.

 

I’m not policing your words. If I had been policing your words my post would’ve read more like this: “You’re wrong! You are a mean old Judgey McJudgerson and you're not allowed to use the word 'underhanded'. Your whole post is under arrest for being wrong! Take it all back now!” Notice that’s not what my original post said. At. All. Disagreement is not policing. I wasn’t policing you but pointing out that your chosen word usage carries connotations with a value judgement, and I’m entitled to have an opinion about Snow’s actions and to disagree with your choice of words just as you are entitled to consider Snow’s actions as “underhanded”. 

Edited February 17, 2015 by ImNotBatman

[KingOfHearts]

I'll never look at the word "underhanded" the same way again.

 

There's no question that Snow did the right thing. However, we're talking about this show. The whole point of it was to bring Snow down to bring Regina up. The writers had no intention of giving the heroes a triumph or to make Snow even more awesome. It wasn't even about her. This is why I did not like it - because it was these writers and it rocketed the Woegina Movement to cosmic heights. It's well and good for Snow to feel conflicted and upset. That's human emotion and it's hunky dory. But you know what came out of it? Snow kissing up to Regina for eternity in order to gain repentance that she'll never actually get.

 

This was the blow that utterly destroyed what was left of Bandit Snow. From that point on, she was promoted to leader of the Regina Cheerleading Squad. It may have been an epic defeat, but it was framed as something else... and that's what I resent. I wish it never happened.

Edited February 17, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[SilverShadow]

Being “underhanded” carries the connotation of being unfair, corrupt or hitting below the belt, and just “bad”. So do I think what Snow did was unfair, corrupt, or hitting below the belt, or “bad”? No, I don’t think it was, and therefore, I don’t consider Snow’s actions “underhanded”. That’s why I think calling Snow’s actions “underhanded” carries with it a value judgement — because of the negative connotations. So whether you intended to judge Snow or not, it’s my opinion that calling her actions ”underhanded” is a judgement — again whether that is your intention or not, conscious or unconscious.

 

Okay, I think I see where we're misunderstanding each other. You seem to be saying "not playing fair/hitting below the belt" is automatically "corrupt" or "bad". I strongly disagree. I absolutely believe there are circumstances where one shouldn't play fair, generally when someone else has already instigated an unfair situation against you and you are trying to right the wrong. Which is what Regina and Cora had done to Snow and her family. I think playing on Regina's Mommy Issues was "hitting below the belt" because in pure tactical terms Snow was exploiting the biggest vulnerability she could think of to get the outcome needed to stop Cora. But I don't think it necessarily follows that it was a "corrupt" or "bad" act.

[KingOfHearts]

 

I absolutely believe there are circumstances where one shouldn't play fair, generally when someone else has already instigated an unfair situation against you and you are trying to right the wrong. Which is what Regina and Cora had done to Snow and her family.

That playing field wasn't leveled at all, I agree. Cora and Regina had the dagger, Cora had more power than anyone else, and she was also about to become the unstoppable Dark One. Team Hero couldn't fight because they were just poofed away if they tried. Snow wasn't strictly lying, either - Cora couldn't truly love Regina because she didn't have her heart intact. Under these circumstances, "underhanded" was indeed the only solution.  And to be fair, Rumple was the one who gave Snow the idea. He probably could have gotten rid of Cora with something else in his shop, but Snow was convenient and highly manipulable. 

Edited February 17, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[KAOS Agent]

 

The whole point of it was to bring Snow down to bring Regina up. The writers had no intention of giving the heroes a triumph or to make Snow even more awesome. It wasn't even about her. This is why I did not like it - because it was these writers and it rocketed the Woegina Movement to cosmic heights.

 

And this is why the morality on this show is so skewed. Snow kills someone in self-defense and arguably for the greater good, but she is evil for doing so. This evil act gave her a black spot on her heart. She then went on to such horrid acts as slapping Geppetto for lying and sending her newborn into this world alone. That bitch!  Would the Snow without this black spot have smiled and said, "It's cool, G" after finding out this information? So are they telling me that's it's immoral to have feelings of anger towards those who've wronged you? Apparently for the heroes this is the case.

 

Further complicating the morality issues is that Snow's previous "heroic" action of letting Regina go instead of executing her or locking her up for her crimes ultimately led to the destruction of an entire kingdom in addition to Emma, Pinocchio & Owen's childhoods, Graham & Henry Sr's murders, the deaths of any of the guards protecting the Charmings' castle as the curse arrived and any other activities Regina got up to after being released that I don't know about. If heroes don't kill, how do so many people end up dead or injured due to their inaction? It seems to me that the heroic morality of mercy leads to a worse outcome than making a moral decision to stop the evil by killing the perpetrator of that evil. 

 

Funny story, when Regina and Rumpel were planning to kill whoever came through the well, it was only presented as wrong because it would kill Snow & Emma if they were the ones who came through. Cora's death would've been fine. Even Emma said it was cool because she understood them wanting to keep Cora out of Storybrooke. But when Snow does the exact same thing after Cora had left a path of destruction behind her and was threatening infinitely worse, she's suddenly on the path to being the evilest evil that ever eviled.

[Shanna Marie]

I think that when we look back at this series as a whole, the handling of the killing of Cora may end up being the show's Jump The Shark moment because that was the point when everything went screwy.

 

Regina had previously planned to kill Cora (and thought she had killed her), so the irony of killing Cora now was delicious.

And to add to the irony, the "weapon" Snow used was Cora's own weapon that Cora intended for Snow to use on some innocent in order to save her mother.

 

I still consider Snow killing Cora and even the way she did so to be Snow's Crowning Moment of Awesome. I don't have a problem with her feeling guilty about it because that shows that she is a good person and shows how she's better than Regina. She can not regret it in the sense that she knows it was necessary and that the consequences would have been worse if she hadn't done it, but she can feel bad about the fact that doing it and doing it the way she did it caused pain to Regina. The problem was the way it was handled in the aftermath.

 

Everyone else, including all the good guys, acted like they agreed with her grief and guilt. No one supported her. No one corrected Henry when he gave the "heroes don't kill" speech. The show has treated Snow's "crime" against Regina as greater than anything Regina did to Snow. Even a season later, Regina was referring to Snow as a murderer, and only grudgingly admitted that it was "complicated" because Cora killed Snow's mother. As many times as Snow has apologized to Regina, the supposedly redeemed and deserving of a happy ending Regina has yet to say anything to Snow about arranging Snow's father's murder. Everyone seems to have forgotten that Regina herself plotted to kill Cora and even thought she'd done so. The only thing that kept her from making sure Cora was dead was Hook switching sides. But even Hook doesn't seem to remember (or doesn't care to point out) as Regina is playing the wounded party that Snow merely succeeded in doing what Regina had planned to do. Regina was willing to let Snow and Emma die to ensure that Cora was kept out of Storybrooke. Cora was the one who did most of the harm to Regina. She was the one who killed Daniel. She framed Regina for murder. And yet Regina never seemed to have had any kind of epiphany that Cora, and not Snow, was the one who'd caused all her unhappiness. That could have been a reason for her turnaround, but instead it all seems to have made her worse.

 

Then to make matters even worse, they went further back in time and showed Cora as being a "victim" of Eva's evil truth telling, which makes that family as bad as or worse than the mass-murdering Mills clan. Everyone is still okay with Snow being called a murderer for killing Cora.

 

She then went on to such horrid acts as slapping Geppetto for lying and sending her newborn into this world alone. That bitch!  Would the Snow without this black spot have smiled and said, "It's cool, G" after finding out this information? So are they telling me that's it's immoral to have feelings of anger towards those who've wronged you?

And then there was this. They really are sending the message that it's better to be bad. If you're bad and then decide to change your ways, you get totally forgiven for everything you've done, with no apologies necessary, and then the good guys have to apologize to you for everything they've done, even if they were defending themselves. You're allowed to hold grudges and continue being angry about every little thing done to them, but it's a sign of a dark heart if they get angry about a massive betrayal.

[KAOS Agent]

I find it even more confusing that Rumpel is considered a hero for killing Pan. I don't get it. If a villain kills another villain in defense of others, he's a hero, but if a hero kills a villain in defense, she's a villain?

[Shanna Marie]

If a villain kills another villain in defense of others, he's a hero, but if a hero kills a villain in defense, she's a villain?

It's the Return of the Jedi moral paradox -- if Luke kills the Emperor to save the entire galaxy, including his friends, that will open him up to the Dark Side of the Force and make him turn evil. But Darth Vader redeems himself and turns from the Dark Side back to the light side by killing the Emperor in order to save his son. It's the exact same action, and even for a more selfish motive, and yet somehow it's redemptive for him while supposedly devastating for Luke.

 

So, yeah, on this show, Rumple's a hero for killing Pan, but Snow's a villain for killing Cora.

[Camera One]

The simplistic answer is that Rumple killed himself too, so he sacrificed himself to kill Pan and everyone was saved.  Whereas that selfish and bratty Snow didn't kill herself at the same time as killing Cora.  That would have been the hard way, the right way, the best way, the hero's way.  She took the easy way, and for that, shame shame shame shame shame.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

To me, not killing the mass murderer is basically killing all the people the murderer will kill in the future. All the blood from Regina's victims since her execution was halted is also on Snow's hands. She let her go while putting her whole kingdom in danger. What I find selfish is that she put a protection spell on herself and her husband, but no one else as if they weren't as important. 

 

If Snow had not killed Cora, she would basically be sentencing her own family and the town to death. The needs of the many...

Edited February 20, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[tennisgurl]

The show has never really been great about the "needs of the many". It has never cared about the large masses who we never got to know, or don't know as well, as much as the main characters, even main characters like Regina, who have gallons of blood on their hands. This will pretty much always find a way to weasel out of making hard calls, or do what they did with Snow, and have her proclaim over and over how killing Cora was so horrible. 

 

Where is Mr. Spock when you need him?

Edited February 20, 2015 by tennisgurl

[Camera One]

It's because the writers themselves don't care about the masses.  They are all just redshirts.  Even the supporting characters like Blue... she died twice and the writers didn't even bother adding any *insert sad expression here* into the script.

[KingOfHearts]

 

The show has never really been great about the "needs of the many".

Preach it. I was rewatching 4x09 with the Diner Speech parallel. I find it funny that before Snow was vehemently against sacrificing one person to save everyone else. But when Regina suggests it, she instantly changes her mind. When Regina does adultery, it's okay. When Regina says Emma shouldn't give up her powers, we need to stop it from happening. If that's not proof Snow twists her moral standards if not whole life around Regina, I don't know what is.

 

The needs of the Evil Queen outweigh everyone's.

Edited February 20, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

Don't forget Regina changing Snow/Charming's mind about going after Emma in "Smash the Mirror".  At least I think it's "Smash the Mirror".   I have a lot of difficulty remembering the episode names this year.  

[FabulousTater]

To me, not killing the mass murderer is basically killing all the people the murderer will kill in the future. All the blood from Regina's victims since her execution was halted is also on Snow's hands. She let her go while putting her whole kingdom in danger. What I find selfish is that she put a protection spell on herself and her husband, but no one else as if they weren't as important.

It gets better. IIRC, Snow and Charming setup this protection spell for themselves after Regina had already slaughtered that entire village and they knew about it. So Snow and Charming had hard proof that Regina was ready, willing, and able to kill others just to get at Snow and Charming, and yet their solution was to place a protection spell just around themselves because that will surely stop Regina! The stupid makes my head hurt. 

Edited February 20, 2015 by FabulousTater

[KingOfHearts]

 

It gets better. IIRC, Snow and Charming setup this protection spell for themselves after Regina had already slaughtered that entire village and they knew about it. So Snow and Charming had hard proof that Regina was ready, willing, and able to kill others just to get at Snow and Charming, and yet their solution was to place a protection spell just around themselves because that will surely stop Regina! The stupid makes my head hurt.

Then they repeat their mistakes with Zelena. They didn't give a crap about her terrorizing the kingdom or turning people into flying monkeys. But when they were threatened, it was "curse the whole realm, kingdom be darned". Did they poll people? Was their survey? Of course not - otherwise Zelena would find out about it. It was all about them, not anyone else. There was zero reaction to Aurora and Phillip being monkey-fied, they didn't miss Emma at all, and they didn't give two figs about Zelena having the dagger. Snow, Charming and Regina... talk about twisted politics.

[kpw801]

My problem is the inconsistency with the stated powers of good and evil.  The blue fairy was introduced as an ancient being that was extremely powerful, yet she can never do anything against powerful dark forces.  Fairy dust alone is never enough.  She is a terrible planner.  The magic bean field should have been split instead of all in one place so that Regina or any other villain could destroy it.  Without fairy dust the blue fairy is nothing but Rumple, Regina, Cora and Zelena can just do whatever whenever.  I am addicted to the show but it is frustrating.  I also agree with those who say that Regina has never shown any remorse for the many murders she has committed.  She knows her mother poisoned Snow's mother to make her queen and she didn't even want to be queen.  I would have been horrified to find out my mother did something like that.  She never called her mother on it.  I cannot understand how Regina justified going on a murderous rampage against a child and her family because her own mother ripped out and crushed the heart of the man she loved.  She pushed her mother through the looking glass and then took out all her anger on not only Snow but the entire kingdom.  Now was are supposed to root for her to get a happy ending?

[CatMack]

So I was rewatching Stargate: The Ark of Truth, and there's a scene that really summed up what I find so lacking about Once Upon a Time and their treatment of 'redeeming' villainous characters.

 

So in the scene there's Tomin sitting in the mess hall, everyone kind of side eyeing him.  Tomin is a very, very recently reformed religious fanatic.  He believed in false gods his whole life, but did so peacefully.  Until recently when his religious leaders and the aforementioned false gods decided to launch a crusade.  He had doubts about certain tactics and interpretations of scripture, but ultimately willingly chose to participate in the violence.  Until finally his doubts got the better of him and he defected to give the heroes intel they need.

 

So he's sitting there, and up walks Teal'c.  Teal'c is another alien (did I mention Tomin is alien? totally human looking, but alien...it's Stargate, just go with it).  In fact he's another alien that used to commit horrific acts in the name of false gods, who defected when our heroes offered him a second chance.  So he and Tomin?  They have some stuff in common.

 

So Teal'c sits down with him, with everyone glaring, and he starts talking.  He tells Tomin that (paraphrasing) he will never forgive himself.  There is no way to balance the scales of what he did.  Even if one day others offer their forgiveness, it's more about them than him, because he will never stop hating himself for the choices he made, the people he killed.  But you keep fighting to do good, keep trying to help people now, because that's all you can do.  It will never be enough, so you can never stop doing it.  That's the gist of the talk Teal'c gives him.  

 

And that's what I'm missing from Once.  The sense that anyone, characters or writers, views these horrible acts that were committed as things that can never be erased.  I guarantee you both of those character on Stargate have body counts way higher than Regina and maybe even Rumple, but I have zero problems with them getting relatively happy endings.  Teal'c had a good life.  At the end of 10 seasons he had friends who trusted and respected him, he was a leader amongst his people, he laughed and joked and he belonged.  He didn't have a romantic happily ever after, but that's mostly because Stargate wasn't really a show that did romance that lasted more than an episode.  But he was definitely 'redeemed' in a narrative sense.  He had happiness.  He had a good life.  And he still never forgot the terrible things he did.  Tomin doesn't really find peace or happiness before the end of the TV movie, but he gets to survive, he gets to go back to his people who have now lost the only way of life they've ever known, and he gets told that he'll be a good leader if he sticks to the ideals that made him a good and kind person before he let himself be corrupted.  Not bad endings for two characters who did a lot of harm.  But they earned it in the sense that they understood the gravity of their mistakes, they understood that pain was a burden they didn't deserve to ever lose, and they were committed to helping people for the rest of their lives as recompense. 

 

Once has this attitude that if you just stop actively doing evil things in the present, that's all that's needed for redemption.  Regina has expressed no remorse, has not tried to make amends, still has to be nagged to help or do the right thing at least 75% of the time, and then whines that she doesn't have her happy ending yet.  And everyone else around her just goes with it.  At least with Rumple they don't seem to be pretending he's redeemed any more, but Regina?  Her arch is virtually unwatchable for me, because the villain redemption arc has been done so much better too many times for me to ignore just how childish and half assed it is.  If you want to write a show about villains getting a happy ending fine.  But that has to start with acknowledging what it takes to come back from being a villain.  They haven't even come close.

[Camera One]

He tells Tomin that (paraphrasing) he will never forgive himself.  There is no way to balance the scales of what he did.  Even if one day others offer their forgiveness, it's more about them than him, because he will never stop hating himself for the choices he made, the people he killed.  But you keep fighting to do good, keep trying to help people now, because that's all you can do.  It will never be enough, so you can never stop doing it.

 

That's similar to what they did with Angel.  I vaguely remember him saying something similar. 

[Delphi]

He said it to Faith, when he was rehabilitating her after being evil for two years and murdering people.

Faith: "So, how does this - work?"

Angel: "There is no real simple answer to that. - I won't lie to you and tell you that it'll be easy - because it won't be. - Just because you've decided to change doesn't mean that the world is ready for you to. - The truth is - no matter how much you suffer, no matter how many good deeds you do to try to make up for the past - you may never balance out the cosmic scale. - The only thing I can promise you is that you'll probably be haunted - and may be for the rest of your life."

Faith indicates the Microwave: "So how does *this* work?"

And for the rest of the series they are bothered by it and sidebar, Faith did go to jail for her crimes which was really a few assaults, one murder and one accidental death.

[SilverShadow]

And then a couple years later Faith was in a position where it seemed like she was about to die (helping save ANgel, nonetheless), and Angel roused her by essentially saying, "Yeah, you don't get to die yet. That's taking the easy way out. You've still got shit to do." Their weird friendship was so well done and awesome. 

[Delphi]

Exactly. And I get that imprisoning a regular guest star is a lot different than locking up one of your leading ladies. Once isn't that kind of show. It wouldn't be entertaining for Henry to occasionally visit Regina in her cell or for her to give advice from behind glass windows. But she needs to feel something, which she hasn't.

She shouldn't be allowed to use magic anymore unless it's for training Emma, she shouldn't be mayor.

I don't mind her with Robin. Angel killed hundreds of people he still got to have love interests, as did Faith. But they are still tortured.

Rumple shows more regret than Regina. That's saying a lot considering he didn't actively try to murder the entire town...until 4a.

[Curio]

It wouldn't be entertaining for Henry to occasionally visit Regina in her cell or for her to give advice from behind glass windows.

 

Speak for yourself, I would be very entertained by that! In fact, I'd love an Orange is the New Black scenario with Regina where she's forced to spend a year or two behind bars in closed quarters with other villains who probably all hate her. If they don't want to show it on screen, fine...just pull another 3B and jump ahead a year. Rumple spent a good amount of time behind bars in the Enchanted Forest and they still made it entertaining. But sadly, something tells me we're going to end this series with Emma having spent more time in prison than Regina ever will.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Curio

[Sabs]

Maybe it's just me, but I am hesitant to call Regina and Robin "adultery".  I know, in the strictest sense of the word, it is.  BUT, she was DEAD!  If my husband died, and I mourned his death for years, but I met another guy, and against all odds I found myself falling in love (because even Robin admitted that he thought he'd never love again after Marian) and I decided to move on from my dead husband, would that be wrong?  Who watches The Mentalist?  It would be like calling Jane and Lisbon adultery.

 

Okay, so we are all agreed that it is okay if she is dead, it isn't adultery.  So by a twist of magic that wasn't even supposed to be possible, she is suddenly NOT dead.  After everyone has mourned her death and moved on.  It'd be like my dead husband or Jane's dead wife suddenly appearing.  So what, we turn off our love because something impossible happened?  It's not that simple folks...  Love isn't adultery if you aren't married.  And you aren't married when your spouse DIES.

 

And I'm one of those Bible believing conservatives who believes in "til death do us part" and no divorce and all that.  But I'm pretty sure my Bible doesn't explain what to do if someone is brought back from the past...  So I am not convinced that Robin and Regina is adultery.  Sucks to be Marian, because in HER mind it is, but she just took a 30+ year time jump.  She's a little confused.  And she's supposed to be dead.

[Dani-Ellie]

My issue with Outlaw Queen wasn't so much the adultery because as far as Robin was concerned, Marian was dead and she was never coming back. I understand it's not as simple as flipping a switch, especially if he'd mourned as appropriate and was beginning to move on with his life.

 

My problem was Robin himself. He tells Regina he has a duty to Marian, he made vows to her, and he needs to stay with her. But he doesn't stay with her. He keeps going to Regina because that's where his heart is taking him, and you know what, I get that. I really do. But own it, dude. Don't sit there and make Regina second fiddle to your wife, whom you can't/don't love anymore, and don't confess your love of someone else over your newly alive wife's frozen, dying body.

 

It may not be strictly adultery, but it's still rather squicky to me on his part.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Dani-Ellie

[Crimson Belle]

At the point where Marion gets back, Robin goes back to Marion but then proceeds to go play hid the apple with his slampiece of 5 days on top of one of her murder victims' graves, then yeah, it's adultery.  Because at that point he committed to Marion and boned her murdered behind her back.

 

And pursuing you're wife's murderer is even worse than adultery in my opinion, as is sleeping with a widower who is a widower because you murdered their spouse.  But maybe that's just me.

[Shanna Marie]

Maybe it's just me, but I am hesitant to call Regina and Robin "adultery".  I know, in the strictest sense of the word, it is.  BUT, she was DEAD!

The parts that happened when Marian was believed to be dead weren't really adultery. What makes it adultery is what happened after she returned. Robin said he was going to honor his marriage vows. He and Marian were functioning as a married couple when she was hit by the freezing curse. Then he started sleeping with Regina (and his line about not having had "sleep" that good in a long time suggests that this was the first time they'd slept together). If he'd said he'd moved on when Marian returned and had considered his marriage over, that would have been another story, but he was saying he was committed to his marriage to Marian when he was sleeping with Regina, and that, to me, makes it adultery.

 

Speaking of cringeworthy things from "Smash the Mirror" (also known as "Smash the TV" in my house), this whole find the Author and get him to write Regina a happy ending plot may be the most morally skewed thing this show has done (and that's saying something). For one thing, Regina's thesis is totally wrong. She's complaining about not getting a happy ending, but this is life, not a book, so there is no "ending" until death. There's just life. Unless she's dying of a terminal illness, alone and unloved in a charity hospital, she can't claim that she doesn't have a happy ending because there's still more life ahead. Not having what you want, right now, doesn't mean you're getting an unhappy ending. Then there's her blaming the book for not getting a happy ending, which this week she seems to be defining as having Robin. But this stuff isn't in the book, so how is it the book's/Author's fault? Unless curse 2's book is very different, the book ends with her casting the curse and believing she's getting a happy ending. She claims that the book dictates that villains don't get happy endings, even if they're trying to be good, but what villains would that be, other than her? We haven't seen any stories about villains trying to be good for more than about five minutes before giving up and going back to their old ways. There have been no stories in this series about villains really trying to be good and still getting unhappy endings, and I can't think of anything in the Grimm versions or the Disney versions of fairy tales. The closest might be Ingrid, who died after realizing how wrong she was, but that hadn't happened when Regina was making this claim.

 

Then there's her definition of "happy ending" and how it compares to what good people get. She apparently hasn't read the Grimm versions if she thinks she's getting a "villain" ending. Her Grimm counterpart was forced to dance to her death in red-hot iron shoes. Her Disney counterpart fell over a cliff. Most Disney villains are killed in some way. The Grimm villains tended to get punishment that fit the crime -- either they had done to them what they were trying to do to others or in the cases of usurpers/impostors, they were asked what should be done to someone who'd done what they'd done, and then that was done to them. Living in a mansion, having wealth and magical power, having a son who loves her in spite of what she did to him, and having her former victims supporting her and begging to be her friends, but not getting the particular boyfriend she wanted, RIGHT NOW, is not a "villain" ending. Meanwhile, look at what the heroes have gone through. They've been ripped away from their loves (often due to Regina's actions), have had loved ones die, and aren't living easy lives. For our other "reformed" villains, Rumple turned out not to be all that reformed, after all. He wasn't even trying to be good, so his unhappy ending isn't a sign that things are all wrong, and Hook has probably suffered a lot more than Regina has, but he seems pretty content with his current situation. We haven't heard him complaining about being treated unfairly by fate even when awful things happen to him.

 

And then we come back to that problem of someone who's done what she's done believing that she deserves to have a happy ending handed to her and feeling she's been robbed because she's not being treated like a hero (never mind that even the heroes haven't been treated the way Regina wants to be treated). Worse, the other characters are buying in to this insanity and want to help Regina on this quest. Only Snow, of all people, has pointed out that the way to get a happy ending is to do good things and make good things happen.

[Serena]

I don't think anyone ever called Robin/Regina in 3B adultery. Nor would anyone have called them adultery if Robin, after Marian came back in S4, told her "Listen, I'm really glad you're alive, but it's been 30 years for me so I've moved on". I mean, I would have called him a gross moron, but not an adulterer. But that didn't happen. Robin specifically said "hey Regina, I'm gonna go back to my wife". And he did. They were back together - Robin had made his CHOICE - when Marian essentially fell into a coma. And that's when any relationship between R/R became adultery.

[Sabs]

Yeah, Robin may have said he was going back to his wife, but (I'm going to have to rewatch those scenes after Easter (given up TV for Lent)) if I recall, he was super unsure about it.  The whole time he just didn't know what the right thing to do was.  And I don't blame him at all.  So technically, he made vows to Marian, so he feels honor bound to abide by them.  While at the same time, he has completely moved on and fallen in love with someone else.  It's hard to understand in our culture, where divorce would be the obvious answer.  But he doesn't feel like that would be right by Marian, whom he does still love, in the way you'd love a memory.  His problem is that he legitimately loves two women.  He wants to be with Regina, but doesn't know what to do about Marian.  He wants to do the right thing, which he believes is staying with Marian.  My question is this- is that the right thing?  Do his wedding vows still mean anything?

(I'm completely ignoring the part about Regina's crimes against Marian and everyone else under the sun in this philosophical discussion- I'm just trying to decide how wrong his tryst with Regina was- which, again, not focusing on where that happened, because, GROSS.)  

Marian seemed to believe that the right thing was for Robin to choose Regina, based on the how much he appeared to love her.  Right?  I couldn't quite figure out where she was coming from, and then they swept that under the rug when she got sick again.

I guess what I'm saying is if you ignore Regina's crimes and Marian's illness- who would be the "right" choice, from an ethical standpoint.  And I would say Regina.  Because his vows ceased to hold water when Marian died. 

But, as you pointed out, he did say he would hold himself to those vows.  Did he?  Or did he say he would try?  I'm not sure... I don't remember.  So that is when things get a little muddy.  I guess his little speech to Regina in the crypt basically said "I know this is wrong, but I don't care" so in that sense, because he believed himself to be obligated to fulfill his old vows to Marian, it could be called adultery.  But I wouldn't personally call it that.  I think he's just confused, as would anyone who's dead wife came back from the past.

That said, I think having sex with anyone in a crypt of any kind is so many levels of disturbing I just can't...

And... I don't forgive Regina for her many past crimes.  I seriously get so upset at the showrunners for trying to make us pretend like it didn't happen.  So confusing...

[Sabs]

It's kind of like the weird love triangle thing in the movie Pearl Harbor.  Except the exact opposite.  Which I would type out here, except I don't know if I should make it a spoiler and I don't know how...

 

The point is, when people come back from the dead, "right" and "wrong" become seriously messy.

[Selina K]

In my mind, the difference is that they have been dating for a week. If you go on three dates with someone and your dead spouse shows up, it's different than if you had moved on and established a new loving fulfilling relationship with someone else over months or years. Maybe I'm a cynic in that love at first sight or soul mates or whatever doesn't play for me, but they went out for a few beers essentially. I tend to assign more blame to Robin than Regina, but I think the adultery is more because I see what they were doing as knocking boots with little emotional attachment. You don't throw over your spouse, dead or otherwise, for a lay.