Morality in Storybrooke / Social Issues: Threads Combined!

[Shanna Marie]

I made it through my skimming rewatch of 2B, and wow, but that's got to be among the most morally questionable sections of the whole series where the villain/hero double standard is off the charts. Snow's "dark heart" for killing Cora gets a lot more attention and she gets more criticism than Cora got for killing Johanna, and Regina standing there and watching never gets mentioned. But what really gets me is the way they turned actual victims into villains. I'm not arguing that Hook's and Greg's actions weren't villainous. I'm questioning the writing decision to give true victim backstories to their villains or to choose actual victims to make into villains (however they came up with it). These were both people who'd been wronged by their targets, and all the other supposedly good characters did was defend their targets. We've talked about Hook plenty, but Greg/Owen didn't even have the gray areas Hook did, where Hook at least had been a jerk to Rumple and "stole" his wife. But Owen did absolutely nothing to Regina other than refuse to let her kidnap him and take over his life. He was a child she tried to steal, and for that he was left orphaned when she murdered his father. When he finds a way back to the town to find his father, she lies to him. No one else tries at all to help him, and they rally around Regina. Now, it might have gone better for him if he'd come in telling the truth about who he was and what happened to him, but it was hard to watch that whole story arc without feeling like the guy kind of had a point (well, up to the part where he wanted to destroy the whole town and kill everyone in it). The characters who did the wronging are treated like victims, there's no remorse, no apology, no attempt to set things right. Greg gets killed and Hook changes and gives up on getting revenge or justice (though Rumple doesn't honor their truce).

 

Creating sympathetic villains is one thing, but there is a point where the good guys start to look like jerks for opposing them or not trying to help them.

 

You could kind of write it off as main character bias, where the title credits character always wins out over the guest character, but then we have a similar situation in 4B with the eggbabynapping plot, where there's a villainous guest character who has been genuinely wronged by title credits characters -- and this time the main characters express remorse and apologize and other characters jump in to help set things right, and sympathy goes to Maleficent, with her other evil deeds apparently wiped away because she was wronged (I wonder what Aurora and Philip thought about that). And, oddly enough, nothing much is said about Regina freezing Maleficent in her dragon form and keeping her locked up under the library for 28 years and then even using her ghost form as a security guard. The only wrong that counts is what Snow did.

[Faemonic]

I made it through my skimming rewatch of 2B, and wow, but that's got to be among the most morally questionable sections of the whole series where the villain/hero double standard is off the charts. Snow's "dark heart" for killing Cora gets a lot more attention and she gets more criticism than Cora got for killing Johanna, and Regina standing there and watching never gets mentioned.

"Crowns aren't for servants!" Apparently, neither are major plot/character arcs.

 

 

 

But what really gets me is the way they turned actual victims into villains. I'm not arguing that Hook's and Greg's actions weren't villainous. I'm questioning the writing decision to give true victim backstories to their villains or to choose actual victims to make into villains (however they came up with it).

Creating sympathetic villains is one thing, but there is a point where the good guys start to look like jerks for opposing them or not trying to help them.

 

From what I've seen of the trend, in our generation Wicked by Gregory Maguire might have popularized it, but all imitations rather missed the point. Maguire had a story to tell: Elphaba's side of it, even though Elphaba still loses. Most imitations of Wicked seem to try to make it formulaic, not inspired, so, formula: the villains had understandable motivations and the heroes had skeletons in their closet that they were just lucky enough to keep there. The writers, or at least These Writers have the luxury of changing the positions of the designated heroes and villains.

 

When it's done well, it captures moral ambiguity and makes people think. (Also, if you had a story to tell rather than cash to grab.) When it doesn't work well... This Show.

 

Heck, the downgoing of Rumple could have still been, not sympathetic but understandable. He could have been a tragic hero, as in with one fatal flaw that leads to his downfall over the moral event horizon. These Writers didn't have to write it in iambic pentameter, but that was a formula that they could have stripped and re-used, and still have come out with a character as compelling as Macbeth. Rumple could have had Zelena Trauma and refused to lean on Belle because for some reason he doesn't trust her half as much as he trusts Hook (when he has the pirate's heart.) Instead, Rumple just continues to do all the villainous things because he's a villain, and have the Rumbelle shippers scratching their heads before writing meta and then finally abandoning ship. (At least, one of my favorite OUaT meta-writers did.)

 

 

You could kind of write it off as main character bias, where the title credits character always wins out over the guest character, but then we have a similar situation in 4B with the eggbabynapping plot, where there's a villainous guest character who has been genuinely wronged by title credits characters -- and this time the main characters express remorse and apologize and other characters jump in to help set things right, and sympathy goes to Maleficent, with her other evil deeds apparently wiped away because she was wronged (I wonder what Aurora and Philip thought about that). And, oddly enough, nothing much is said about Regina freezing Maleficent in her dragon form and keeping her locked up under the library for 28 years and then even using her ghost form as a security guard. The only wrong that counts is what Snow did.

 

I'm guessing that it's not just main character bias, but a sort of character archetype bias. It's not "ironic" or "interesting" unless a hero has done villainous things. (But it still really isn't.) Regina massacres a village to establish her villainy could be the same element as Snow giving a hope speech to establish her heroism, never mind that massacre generally ought to have more consequences than that. Meanwhile, the villainy of eggnapping is belaboured because "heroes" did it and How Is That Not Ironic And Interesting??? (I don't know, it's just not.)

Edited August 17, 2015 by Faemonic

[KAOS Agent]

 

We've talked about Hook plenty, but Greg/Owen didn't even have the gray areas Hook did, where Hook at least had been a jerk to Rumple and "stole" his wife. But Owen did absolutely nothing to Regina other than refuse to let her kidnap him and take over his life.

 

If you look at Greg/Owen's backstory it is almost identical to Regina's only his motivation for revenge is directed at the correct person. Owen's true love (his father) is murdered by an evil witch. Owen does not have the power or ability to gain revenge for the act at that moment, but over time his anger festers. Then a powerful and manipulative magical being comes to him and offers him the power, information and tools he needs to gain his revenge. Why is he treated differently than Regina? You can point to him trying to kill everyone in Storybrooke, but so was Regina. He just co-opted her plan, so there's no difference between them on that point. Why does "redeemed" Regina get to smirk when she hears of his death? Why does Regina deserve eleven million chances to do better, but Greg has to die?

 

Don't get me wrong getting Greg & Tamara off my screen as fast as possible was great, but the moral issues remain. Regina continually benefits and never forced to suffer any kind of justice for her bad deeds, while a character with the exact same sad, sad backstory isn't allowed to use it to excuse his. If you want to show that villains are people too and that there's a gray area, that's cool, but don't put out two characters with the same story and try to tell me one deserves a break because of extenuating circumstances in her past, while the other doesn't. 

[Faemonic]

The thread moderators must have combined Morality and Social Issues for a good reason, but I hope it's not too late for me to offer reasons to keep the threads separate.

 

First, from what I've seen, Social Issues aren't always about right and wrong. We could just point out the absence of classism, religion, and gender roles in the show's worldbuilding. Or we could speculate on the impact of social issues if they were present, and it wouldn't necessarily be a moral issue.

Second, when Social Issues do dabble in right and wrong, it generally comes with a model of ethics rather than morality. An individual poster can very well talk about their personal moral standpoint, but if somebody else comes in say that their opinion of the show is faulty because of some context of oppression and diversity within a particular anthropological philosophy, they could potentially become different arguments.

 

If it's just more practical, cost-effective, and agreeable (if most other users voice that the morality/ethics of Social Issues ought not be partitioned, I can accept that) to keep the threads combined in these forums of course it's ultimately the decision of the admins and mods and this is just a suggestion I'm putting forth.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Faemonic

[KingOfHearts]

Looking back at S1, and even 2A, it appears stuff was more provocative, obvious and less white-washed. There was a great deal of gore, very sexual scenes with Regina and Graham, a public adultery scandal, angry mobs, etc. I wonder why there was such a dramatic change in 2B onward, even besides Regina. I'm not sure if they were going for a more family-friendly angle or what. It lost a lot of its serious tone and became more comic-book-ish.

Edited August 22, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[Shanna Marie]

Something in the Unpopular Opinions thread that I think is good fodder for social issues discussion:

To ME: This is a show about women and their strength, diversity and courage, their ability to face (and be) evil or go against the norm of what a woman has been portrayed as being for centuries in fairy tale and literature. (And expected to accept in life without much of a fight.) The men (some whom I adore) of the show have repeatedly been whitewashed down to cardboard support figures with capes and leather and swords. (Riding horses in full blown hero style never hurts either) They have, in effect, become what women have been to strong male characters for years. Often it is very hard to wrap one's head around the concept.

Wow, this is true! I guess it is hard to wrap your mind around when you're so used to it being the other way around. It feels weird for men to be given so little development when they're usually given all the development, but they are kind of in the position that The Girl in a show used to hold. They're love interests and they need to be rescued, but then they get shoved aside when the girls need to do something.

 

They also seem to be gender-switching the "fridging" trope. Daniel's only reason for existence in the story was to die so that Regina would have all that pain that led to her lifelong revenge scheme. He had no character traits other than being a stableboy who was in love with Regina. We know nothing else about him. He had no goal of his own, no backstory, no definition as a person. Very much like female characters have so often been. Graham got a little more development and some backstory, but he still mostly seemed to exist to get killed and prove how high the stakes were and to give Emma some emotional baggage. Bae wasn't actually fridged, but he was basically a human MacGuffin, a quest object who mostly existed as something to be searched for. Once he was found, his main role was to get fridged, first when they believed he was dead and it caused plot-affecting or character development pain for Rumple, Emma, and Hook, and then later when he was killed for good, mostly to give Rumple a reason for revenge and Emma a reason to put her walls up even more and thereby delay starting a relationship with Hook.

 

However, I have to say that while the turnabout is nice, two wrongs don't make a right, and shortchanging the character development of either gender makes the story weaker. I'd prefer a story where everyone got to play an active role and got fully developed into strong characters.

[Serena]

I disagree that it's a female/male thing. What kind of development have Belle and (in the last few seasons) Snow had? On the other hand, Rumple certainly isn't taking the role of "The Girl". So it's more... characters the writers are interested in vs characters they care about only marginally. It happens that they care a lot about a few female characters, which is only right because they're adapting very female-centric stories... all the iconic characters they "take" from Disney and folklore are girls, so clearly that's where they go. 

Camelot is much more of a dude-centric story, with Arthur, Merlin and Lancelot as the male characters, and Guinevere as the only female. I guess we'll see if they make her role much bigger and theirs smaller, but I don't think so.

[Amerilla]

I actually think Rumpel is sort of The Girl, much more than David or Hook or Neal or Robin. He's got a lot of what would could be called "feminine" characteristics, especially in his deep backstory. Spinning, for example, is historically a female vocation. He's tied to hearth and home - that's his comfort zone. His identity is tied to being a parent. He's meek and non-confrontational.

 

Even his Dark One and Mr. Gold personas retains some of that. He tries to build a wall of material possessions to fill an emotional void. He doesn't like to step outside his comfort zone. He clings to magical tools that give him the illusion of security. He's driven to get his son back, and by extention, to return to his self-definition as a parent and caretaker. Both with Cora and with Belle, he's looking at a settled, married life with children, even if that's fairly low on their agendas.

[Shanna Marie]

Yeah, Rumple seems to be a kind of gender inversion, and then because he's made into a more "feminine" type he gets the female treatment on this show, which means actual character development and the people around him just being there to drive his development. Milah mostly seemed to exist to hurt his feelings. Bae existed mostly to give him a reason to take action -- Bae was his motivation for becoming the Dark One, then was his quest object, then was fridged to cause him pain. Belle mostly seems to teeter between propping him up and needing him to rescue her. Even the Hook's heart plot seemed to be more about giving Rumple a goal than about anything to do with Hook. Plot-wise, it sent Rumple out into the outside world and then revealed his dying heart. Hook got almost no follow-up, either emotionally or plot-wise, from having been in such bad jeopardy for so long, just the one scene in which he and Belle discussed it.

 

So maybe Rumple is getting the full character treatment not because he's a man (as is traditional in modern entertainment) but because he has those traditionally feminine characteristics of wanting hearth and home.

[Serena]

I don't know. Yes, spinner Rumple had some "feminine" characteristics (wanting to be home with his child and wife, I guess), but current/DO Rumple doesn't. Pursuit of power above all else, choosing power above the Love of a Good Woman who can save him, being a Magnificent Bastard, etc...

[Amerilla]

But I'd that him, or the Dark One? That's the big question going into S5, I suppose.

[Curio]

However, I have to say that while the turnabout is nice, two wrongs don't make a right, and shortchanging the character development of either gender makes the story weaker. I'd prefer a story where everyone got to play an active role and got fully developed into strong characters.

So it's more... characters the writers are interested in vs characters they care about only marginally. It happens that they care a lot about a few female characters

While the show is marginally better to its female characters with giving them actual storylines and a majority of the character development, that's not a great track record when it's only three female characters (Emma, Snow, and Regina). And one of those characters has been reduced to being a tandem team with her husband, stripped of many of her cool qualities from the first season, and her awesome relationship with her daughter from Season 1 has been falling apart. And another one of those characters is (I can hear the moans a mile away, but it's still pretty accurate) a Mary Sue. The rest of the female characters on this show are quite underwhelming by comparison. Belle only exists to give Rumple angst and she literally takes naps for multiple episodes in a row, Zelena is a two-dimensional scenery chewing nightmare, Red has been dropped from the story altogether, Granny is a background character who's only needed because of her restaurant's setting, and that's pretty much it. The rest of the women on the show are villains du jours who only stick around for a few episodes at a crack whenever Adam & Eddy feel like playing with a new toy for an arc.

 

But I'd that him, or the Dark One? That's the big question going into S5, I suppose.

 

I hope it wasn't all Dark One and that the darkness just brought out a hidden part of Rumple's personality that he'd been hiding from everyone or was too afraid to tap into. Otherwise, that seems like a very easy "out" to give Rumple to forgive him of all his past sins because "The Dark One made him do it." And even though it sucks for Emma now because she selflessly took on The Dark One title, she has to be somewhat accountable for her actions in Season 5 as The Dark One, otherwise, it's all going to be meaningless.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Curio

[Camera One]

Eddy was saying that Merida was kickass like Red and Snow, but when was the last time they let Snow be kickass, and Red isn't even on the show anymore.  So now they need to bring on someone new to ensure there's a kickass female around?  The description of this show being about strong women could apply in 4A I suppose, but it pretty much fell apart in 4B.  I'm willing to bet A&E would count the Queens of Darkness as strong women, even though they were more like pathetic losers.  I mean, they were nothing compared to Rumple, the male magical supreme being, who was implied to be their teacher in their intro episode and he manipulated the hell out of them in the premiere.  Which leads us to Regina and Emma, though Regina was more defeatist than strong in 4B.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Camera One

[Serena]

I honestly found Cruella and Ursula to be strong characters. They had motivations and goals that had nothing to do with a man (Ursula's motivation had something to do with her father, but mostly with her freedom). They pursued those goals. Ursula managed to get what she wanted because she was a good person deep down, Cruella was a sick sociopath and so didn't. Rumple was always in the background manipulating things in 4B, but he failed at the end. He lost his power, his Alternate World was destroyed thanks to Hero Regina™, and now he's helpless in some coma. The only reason he's not dead is because of a last minute Apprentice ass-pull.

Yes, they weren't super developed or anything, but that's because they were guest stars. For how much screentime they had, I thought those two particular characters were done well.

 

Now Maleficient, that's another matter entirely. They purposedly made her weak (weaker than her original characterization) to make a point about how totally evil Snowing are. Pleading and crying while two random people with zero powers eggnapped her baby? When she's a super powerful witch? Entirely ridiculous.

 

But I'd that him, or the Dark One? That's the big question going into S5, I suppose.

 

If it's not him, then 99% of the Rumple screentime on the show so far has been wasted. I don't know if they'd go for it.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Serena

[Writing Wrongs]

So I've been watching the Dragon Con panels with the QoD. They keep bringing up that Cruella broke the rule of "evil isn't born, it's made". I guess I didn't even pick up on that.

[Mari]

We really do need to figure out an official sliding "scale of awfulness" for this show. (Murdering an Entire Village < Sending a Teenager to Jail < Stealing a Singing Voice < 10-Year-Old Telling a Secret < Eggnapping?) Maybe the Morality Thread would be a good place to compile that list...

I think they're going on the "He/She was provoked."  defense.

 

So, telling Regina's secret was super, super bad, because it wasn't provoked--it wasn't a hurt response to something, it was just an action that hurt someone.

 

Anything Regina does after that is just Regina dealing with the betrayal and pain.  Therefore, part of her . . . karmic consequence? . . . actually belongs to Snow, for the initial betrayal .  

 

Ursula apparently did some bad things while separated from her father.  Her father, and Hook, are actually responsible for those because they took her voice and betrayed her.  She was just reacting, which is understandable..

 

The Author, Isaac, was betrayed and insulted by both Cruella and his boss.  Guess who's responsible for his misdeeds.

 

Maleficent's child was stolen by the Charmings, and I bet if we knew her backstory, there was some betrayal or insult by Aurora's family.  That makes them responsible for Maleficent's crimes.  

 

Emma, since she was not betrayed and just chose to do something, will be more responsible for her own evil.  She's not reacting to pain, you see.

 

 

It's a particularly juvenile  way of looking at right and wrong, but we tend  to do this--"It's not my fault!  I was just hurt and not in control!"   (Or they, if we're talking/writing about someone we think of sympathetically or as of having little power.)

[YaddaYadda]

They keep bringing up that Cruella broke the rule of "evil isn't born, it's made". I guess I didn't even pick up on that.

 

Cruella's mother locked her up because she was a psycho and her happy ending was to be able to kill again.

[orza]

But I'd that him, or the Dark One? That's the big question going into S5, I suppose.

Eddy answered that question at Comic Con. As he put it, the Dark One is "the ultimate you." The dark curse takes away the internal filters and inhibitions that we all have to keep ourselves in check. In the Season 4 finale the Apprentice, who is evidently the resident expert on the subject, always referred to the dark flubber as the darkness and not as the dark entity. The phrasing is important, I think. He said that Rumple was the Dark One for a long time, not that he was a host to an entity possessing some sentience and able to influence or control his behavior

 

This is consistent with what we saw in uncursed Rumple. Before the curse Rumple was an average guy who managed to keep a lid on his less noble side. But they show a few instances where he was not such a nice person.

[KingOfHearts]

Cruella had a mental condition. Her mother even mentions that. It wasn't that her evil was born necessarily, but her brain was susceptible to it from a young age. She mentioned struggling with the darkness and choosing to "splash in and have some fun". While she enjoyed killing because of her condition, I wouldn't count her as a villain from the get go. At some point she made the conscious decision to embrace evil.

Not sure if that makes any sense.

Edited September 9, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[Actionmage]

Eddy answered that question at Comic Con. As he put it, the Dark One is "the ultimate you."

 

Wouldn't the Ultimate You be a balance of your Evil and Good? You don't deny either side, but what looks logical to you might seem horrific to the average person? Whereas The Dark One sounds like any filters on your darker impulses, thoughts, etc. are given ascendancy and priority to thinking of other ways to approach a situation/problem/ asshole in line in front of you. 

 

Trying to be fair, maybe Eddy meant the ultimate you through a darker filter?  You, on Evil and turned up to 100.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Actionmage

[orza]

Wouldn't the Ultimate You be a balance of your Evil and Good? You don't deny either side, but what looks logical to you might seem horrific to the average person? Whereas The Dark One sounds like any filters on your darker impulses, thoughts, etc. are given ascendancy and priority to thinking of other ways to approach a situation/problem/ asshole in line in front of you. 

 

Trying to be fair, maybe Eddy meant the ultimate you through a darker filter?  You, on Evil and turned up to 100.

Eddy said what I paraphrased above. Video of that interview is on YouTube.

[Shanna Marie]

After having my "I just can't with this" moment in trying to watch season one again with the knowledge of how things work out for the characters, I've come up with the Equation of Karmic Justice:

 

Good Deeds+Suffering-Evil Deeds=Outcome

 

If someone does a lot of good and/or suffers a lot while not doing a lot of bad things, then the outcome should be positive. Someone who doesn't suffer much and who doesn't do much good while doing a lot of evil should have a negative outcome. Suffering is measured objectively, not based on how the person judges it, so that the equation isn't skewed by the people who can make themselves be happy or at least content anywhere or those who are never happy anywhere. Physical or situational suffering as a result of evil deeds that backfire counts (because it's consequences) but emotional suffering from evil deeds, other than guilt, regret, or remorse, doesn't count, so feeling lonely after murdering all your friends and family doesn't earn you suffering points.

 

If the equation seems to balance, the story is morally satisfying. But it gets frustrating if the equation seems out of whack. And that's why I can't make myself watch season one right now, where Regina is being totally awful. I got through it before because I had hope that she'd get a comeuppance. Now, though, knowing where things are going with both Regina and Emma, it's too painful to watch.

 

With Emma, we have good deeds too numerous to mention, at great personal cost and sacrifice. There's a great deal of suffering, but very few evil deeds. Her outcome should be positive. But instead she's being turned into a villain. Yeah, the story isn't over, and we can have hope that her overall outcome will be positive, but at the rate she's going, she'd have to end up as the queen of the universe, loved and adored by all, for the equation to balance. On the other hand, there's Regina, who's done a few good things in the past couple of years and who has suffered some, but whose bad deeds are so numerous and so extreme that it's hard to imagine her ever getting a truly positive outcome. And yet, she's the one who lives in comfort, still has magical power and governmental power, her victims all love her and are willing to sacrifice for her, and she gets to have a boyfriend in spite of having imprisoned and tortured his wife. To get that outcome in spite of her evil deeds, it would seem like she'd have to spend years suffering and doing good to get it to balance -- like losing everything so she has to live above the butcher shop and spend her days serving others with anonymous good deeds and spend her nights mopping blood off the butcher shop floor while Bo Peep mocks her.

 

The problem is that everyone puts different values against the deeds and suffering, and if you like a character because you think the actor's cute, because you like the character's wardrobe or lines, or if you identify with the character for some reason, you're going to give higher values to that character's good deeds and suffering scores and lower values to the evil deeds scores, and vice versa if you don't like a character. The writers are obviously inflating Regina's suffering scores, considering they believe she gets the short end of the stick in spite of the fact that she has a better life than any of her former victims. I'm not sure I'd mind Emma going through so much hell, since the story isn't over yet, if Regina hadn't already jumped ahead to getting everything without any karmic balance. She barely paid for her evil before she started being rewarded left and right. She's in "end of the story" territory, skipping most of the middle steps.

[Curio]

On the other hand, there's Regina, who's done a few good things in the past couple of years and who has suffered some, but whose bad deeds are so numerous and so extreme that it's hard to imagine her ever getting a truly positive outcome. And yet, she's the one who lives in comfort, still has magical power and governmental power, her victims all love her and are willing to sacrifice for her, and she gets to have a boyfriend in spite of having imprisoned and tortured his wife. To get that outcome in spite of her evil deeds, it would seem like she'd have to spend years suffering and doing good to get it to balance -- like losing everything so she has to live above the butcher shop and spend her days serving others with anonymous good deeds and spend her nights mopping blood off the butcher shop floor while Bo Peep mocks her.

 

This is what makes me so angry—the writers truly, honestly believe Regina has suffered enough to outweigh all the evil acts she has done. They think that every time Lana makes her eyes water, that's enough suffering for Regina. Never mind the fact that 99% of the time Regina's the one who put herself in those teary-eyed situations to begin with. It's been nearly 100 episodes and I'm still waiting for a proper humiliation conga to hit Regina, but it hasn't happened and never will happen. The closest we've gotten to that kind of karma was the Season 1 finale where Blue told Regina to run away when the curse was broken. But every episode since then, the writers frame all of Regina's sad scenes as being these great atrocities against her by the mean old good guys, so you can't even enjoy her suffering anymore as an audience member. For example, I can't even enjoy Regina "suffering" with the whole Zelena baby fiasco because it's been framed that Robin is the one who hurt Regina by "cheating" on her. 

 

For any other television character, the crimes Regina has committed would equal a karmic death, so you'd think that if she's still alive, she'd be living a terrible, rotten existence where she's constantly falling into mud, lives in poverty, and has lost her magic. But no, she's living the best life out of everyone on the show, still has all of her wealth (even though she's dating a guy who's notorious for stealing from her type), somehow got her mayor position back from Snow offscreen with no explanation, still has powerful magic and white magic that has never been referenced again, and even gets to yell at one of the most selfless characters on the show because she dared to save a person Regina was about to murder. This show is so bass ackwards.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Curio

[Shanna Marie]

But no, she's living the best life out of everyone on the show, still has all of her wealth (even though she's dating a guy who's notorious for stealing from her type), somehow got her mayor position back from Snow offscreen with no explanation, still has powerful magic and white magic that has never been referenced again

And yet she whines about never getting to win and how awful her life is because she doesn't have everything. I could dismiss that as one of her character flaws, but the writers have talked in interviews about how Regina gets the short end of the stick. It's funny, when Regina was getting ready to cast the curse, everyone warned her about how it would leave a hole in her heart, she'd never be happy, her life would be ruined, etc. And yet now when one little thing doesn't go her way, she acts like it's some terrible injustice and a huge surprise that she isn't getting everything she wants. Did she forget that there was supposed to be some huge price for casting the curse? If they're not going to actually make magic come with a price, they need to stop talking about magic always coming with a price.

 

Back to my equation, I should clarify that I don't think suffering negates evil deeds from a redemption standpoint. It's just easier to tolerate an evil character who suffers the consequences of the evil in some way. True redemption does help balance the equation, though, since it comes with emotional suffering in guilt and remorse, and then it should come with good deeds in trying to atone for past wrongs, apologizing, and then doing more general good deeds while not doing more evil deeds. Those adjustments to the equation make a better outcome more palatable, but there still needs to be some sense of suffering, that life didn't instantly get better after they flipped a "good now" switch.

 

I think the suffering quotient may be why I find Hook a lot more tolerable than other supposedly redeemed villains. There was always the sense that karma was right by his side along the way. In fact, some of his suffering was frontloaded. In his first episode, he was forced to watch as the woman he loved was murdered, and then his hand was cut off, and all we'd seen him do at that point was be a bit of a jerk. Then we saw him get tied up, knocked around by a giant, and chained at the top of the beanstalk. After he tortured Archie and threatened Belle, he got beat by Rumple. After he shot Belle he got hit by a car. After he poisoned Rumple he got knocked out, chained up, and then taken prisoner. It was like for every evil action, there was an equal and immediate bad consequence, so by the time he had his redemption moment, started in on the guilt and self-loathing, and started doing good deeds, his scales were already pretty well-balanced. And yet he still doesn't have the perfect life. He's only gradually winning the trust of the others.

[KAOS Agent]

I think the continued suffering of the victims needs to come into the equation. I was watching a documentary the other night and at the end they were discussing what happened after the war. It was like your suffering is over, now what? The prisoners that were interviewed discussed how they were free, but had no home to go home to. They weren't welcome in their home towns and their houses/possessions/money had all been taken from them.They'd been victimized and survived, but they were forced to start over with nothing. They were no longer suffering torture and degradation, but it wasn't like everything was all wonderful and perfect once they were free. Meanwhile, the returning soldier was welcomed with open arms by his loving family. He was given a very good job and was not required to struggle yet again to start over once the war was lost. They asked the soldier if he felt any guilt at how easy his life was post war when his victims continued to suffer. It reminded me of the whole return to the Enchanted Forest where all of the peasants returned home to a wasteland where all of their possessions and homes had been destroyed while Regina went back to her perfectly preserved castle and all of her queenly possessions. Who was stuck struggling to rebuild their lives? Who had just been ripped away from everything once again? Who was suffering the consequences of someone else's actions? They even glossed over how hard Emma had to have worked to build a life after finding herself homeless and unemployed with an eleven year old and their only possessions being the clothes on their backs and an old car. It's not something that is just fixed. It requires hard work and time to rebuild.

 

Then, a year later, Snowing disrupts everyone's lives yet again by casting the curse again. I would be so pissed if I'd just spent a year rebuilding my life only to be yanked out of it because of someone else's problems. And it doesn't end there. There used to be a fanfic that was told from the point of view of the nameless peasants and it really highlighted how screwed these people are. No one can leave/enter town. This means that there is little opportunity for growth. How can you open a new business if there's not a growing population and no opportunity for trade outside of town? What about recent high school graduates? There's no opportunity for college and what are they supposed to do with their lives? How can there be new job openings when there's no growth? If you love to travel and explore, you're hosed. What if you hate the role/job you were given in the original curse? You could try to find a new job, but again, that's highly limited. We see Snowing & Regina settling into their lives, but they don't have the limitations of everyone else. I'd also say that their wants/needs are very different from others. Snow just wants to raise her baby. Regina says she wants Robin, Roland & Henry. She's happy as the mayor. She lives in a beautiful mansion. Regina can even leave town. Meanwhile, all of the nameless peasants are stuck trying to build their lives never knowing if a new villain is going to destroy it all with no chance to flee or seek out a better life. 

 

It's very frustrating how narrowing the view is when we're only focused on Regina's suffering. Oh no, she's lost her boyfriend of a week. Boo hoo. What about all of these other people whose lives have been screwed and continue to be screwed because of Regina's (and Snowing's) poor choices? I'd say they deserve to have someone help them to find happiness and contentment long before Regina or Rumpel or even Snow White.

Edited September 15, 2015 by KAOS Agent

[Shanna Marie]

I think the continued suffering of the victims needs to come into the equation.

That would probably come into the "evil deeds" score, with the score going up based on the extent of the consequences for the victims. If you ruin someone's life (really ruin their life, as opposed to not letting them execute their boyfriend's wife), that would raise the evil score, and it could only be mitigated by trying to undo the damage. So I figure that Hook got a lot of evil points for taking Ursula's voice out of spite at Poseidon, since that changed her life and sent her down a dark path (though the fact that she made the choice to respond to this event by going dark is on her) and took away something she valued for goodness knows how many years. He got good points for restoring her voice and bonus points for helping her reconcile with her father, but I think he should still be in the negative points overall for that incident because he can't totally undo and take away the suffering he caused. It's just a lot less negative than it was before he made amends.

 

It's very frustrating how narrowing the view is when we're only focused on Regina's suffering. Oh no, she's lost her boyfriend of a week. Boo hoo. What about all of these other people whose lives have been screwed and continue to be screwed because of Regina's (and Snowing's) poor choices?

A lot of that is a worldbuilding failure because they haven't really fleshed out the world well enough to consider the trickle-down implications of the various curses. They don't seem to have thought about anyone other than the core group of Snow's followers. Then there's that skewed morality that treated it like a virtue when Snow let Regina go rather than executing her. Yeah, Snow looked all saintly and forgiving, but look at the consequences of that choice. It led to so many lives being uprooted and altered. We've also never seen how living in our world affected the Storybrookers. How did they adapt to returning to the Enchanted Forest after spending three decades with indoor plumbing and electricity?

 

This really is a "1%er" show. All they seem to care about is the royalty.

[Rumsy4]

The dwarfs had a throwaway line in 3A saying how Storybrooke was so peaceful without Snow and Charming and random "killings". On the other hand, Ruby tells Victor that Regina gave them a gift because they have the chance of a new life in Storybrooke. And in 4A, the dwarfs and Granny seemed to want the creature comforts Storybrooke provided so much that they bullied a mother with a newborn into fixing their interrupted power supply issue. So, the takeaway seems to be that Regina did all the dwarfs and peasants a favor by bringing them to Storybrooke, while it's Snow and Charming who are the agents of chaos. That's how A&E seem to deal with the long-term consequences of the Dark Curse on the common man. It's hard to feel for the peasants when they are not fleshed out in their own right.

 

There was a funny OUAT promo from the point of view of three random citizens of Storybrooke during the Frozen arc. Some of them couldn't wait to get the heck out of Storybrooke once the Ice Wall came down. I can't remember where I saw it. But these are the kinds of things that should have been incorporated within the show. 

Edited September 16, 2015 by Rumsy4

[KingOfHearts]

 

Back to my equation, I should clarify that I don't think suffering negates evil deeds from a redemption standpoint. It's just easier to tolerate an evil character who suffers the consequences of the evil in some way.

What's difficult about sympathizing with Regina's suffering (besides the fact it's usually over ridiculous things) is that most of it is consequences of her own accord. Henry didn't want to be with her in S2 because she abused him for years. Marian wouldn't have been a problem if she hadn't attempted to kill her in the past. Snow would have forgiven her in 2x20 if she hadn't slaughtered that village. Comeuppance should be an element for the audience to celebrate, as is the case with most stories with antagonists. We saw all her wickedness in S1 and the writers hammered it in our faces how horrible she was. I think a lot of people quit watching in S2 because of the lack of follow-through on that. It goes from angry mobs to rejecting lasagna.

 

But you can take characters like Snow and Emma who suffer for doing good or just unfortunate circumstances. You can sympathize with that much easier. Young Regina even fit this category before her incident involving resurrecting Daniel. She started out as someone with an abusive mother and a manipulative mentor. Over time she began committing evil deeds when she had every opportunity not to. All the warnings and advice in the world were at her disposal right until the end. (Snow, Henry Sr, Tinkerbell, Maleficent, even Cora) She chose to reject it and there should be a price for that.

 

Maybe I would find her need to cast the curse more believable if she was using it as a way to become a new person. She seemed to want to be in a place where everyone respected her and didn't view her as the Evil Queen. The show insinuated that several times. How she can feel empty for decades and just remain in evil mode is beyond me. It's being an antagonist for the sake of being an antagonist.

Edited September 16, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[DigitalCount]

I feel weird asking this, but is this show starting to get a bit of Supernatural Syndrome? Other than Ursula and Poseidon, have any black characters left this story under their own power? I can only remember Gus, Tamara (gee, sure wish she was still around with her taser), Marian and Lancelot, and the latter two have the added gross baggage of being killed and having their identities appropriated by the villain. I'm almost convinced that Merlin will be an old black guy who is a powerful sorcerer...until s5e7, when he pulls off his face to reveal that he's Morgan le Fay, who's Regina's aunt, and that she killed the real Merlin centuries ago.

I'm probably forgetting someone. When is Tiana going to show up?

Edited September 16, 2015 by DigitalCount

[Serena]

There was also Rapunzel and her parents. A&E have also said in interviews after 2x03 that we only have Cora's word that Lancelot is dead, and she's a lying liar who lies. The treatment of Marian is flat out gross, but that's more about her having the audacity of having something Regina wants than being black. I guess Roland is biracial?

Edited September 16, 2015 by Serena

[DigitalCount]

Oh right. Freaking cardboard Rapunzel. Can't imagine why I forgot her.

Also, it's a bit rich for them to say that Lancelot is still alive and Cora just lied about killing him. Why would she care to lie about that? If she was just impersonating him, what would it matter if he was dead or not? This seems like a damage control retcon, but I'll be okay with it if it brings back Lancelot.

[Rumsy4]

The worst treatment of a black character in the show is probably Sidney. He was literally enslaved by Regina in 4A, and then freed by Ingrid (a white character, I may add). It was beyond the pale that A&E never thought (or cared) about the racial connotations of that choice.

[YaddaYadda]

The worst treatment of a black character in the show is probably Sidney. He was literally enslaved by Regina in 4A, and then freed by Ingrid (a white character, I may add). It was beyond the pale that A&E never thought (or cared) about the racial connotations of that choice.

Honestly, I'm not sure how much they think about these things if they think of them at all.

 

I mean after rape victim Graham, we now have rape victim Robin. 

[Serena]

It's kind of ridiculous to me? I mean, it's not like fans haven't been yelling "Graham was a rape victim" at them for years. Jane seems vaguely aware that it was rape. And nobody thought "hey, maybe let's not do it again?". I mean, at least they didn't kill off the rape victim immediately after he freed himself. And the rapist isn't being portrayed as a poor woobie who can't find love because the world is so unfair to her (YET). But still, WTF?

[Mari]

The worst treatment of a black character in the show is probably Sidney. He was literally enslaved by Regina in 4A, and then freed by Ingrid (a white character, I may add). It was beyond the pale that A&E never thought (or cared) about the racial connotations of that choice.

It's doubly yuck that Sidney rebelling was semi-treated like a betrayal. Because how could he not want to stay the slave of this person who tricked him, betrayed him, used him, and treated him like garbage?

As for the Robin/Zelena rape debacle?

Jane can vaguely recognize the rape issue with Graham and Regina until the end of the show, but it won't matter as long as the ones in charge recognize that, yes, it's an issue. I believe others with the show have made comments denying it was rape, and even some ones about Graham being Regina's boy toy. If that is how they think about Regina and Graham, Robin never stood a chance; after all, Marian and Zelena are both beautiful women. Why wouldn't Robin be okay with what happened?

Blech. And double blech.

[Curio]

But according to Scott Nimerfro, it totally doesn't count when magic is involved because magic doesn't exist in the real world. Even 5-year-olds can tell the difference.

[KingOfHearts]

Don't forget the black Fairy Godmother who was killed seconds after her introduction.

[Serena]

But according to Scott Nimerfro, it totally doesn't count when magic is involved because magic doesn't exist in the real world. Even 5-year-olds can tell the difference.

I wonder what Brigitte will say when she gets to that episode in her rewatch? That it's "brilliant", probably. Maybe that it's amazing foreshadowing of what Zelena ended up doing to Regina! Because you just know these people think Robin's rape is something that was done to *Regina*. Just like all those "rape the main character's girlfriend to give him motivation", except gender-swapped because this show is soooooo progressive.

[YaddaYadda]

Because you just know these people think Robin's rape is something that was done to *Regina*.

 

But that's exactly how it was framed. The line about her being kicked in the teeth once more made what happened to Robin all about her.

[Shanna Marie]

The really gross thing about Sydney's depiction is that not only was he a slave, but he was the "happy" slave who obsequiously served the mistress he adored. It's a depiction right out of Gone with the Wind. And that was after she set him up to kill the king and then was going to let him take the fall for it. He only turned against her after he took the fall for her kidnapping and trying to murder Kathryn and then she forgot that he was still in prison and imprisoned him in the mirror again so he could help her with Marian.

 

And then there's that gross thing where the dwarfs are an entire race bred specifically for doing hard labor (that they don't seem to get a salary for).

[october]

But that's exactly how it was framed. The line about her being kicked in the teeth once more made what happened to Robin all about her.

 

I saw this a lot with the panels and interviews the cast did at Comic Con. There was very much an air of 'oh Robin, you silly, silly boy. How could you do this to Regina? What are we gonna do with you?' I only remember Sean standing up for Robin by saying that he didn't know it was Zelena at the time.

[Serena]

I guess - and I stress that I 100% believe that Robin was a victim here - part of the "it's Robin's fault" mentality comes from the fact that he chose to sleep with Marian in the first place. Charming wouldn't do that. Hook wouldn't do that. They would remain "faithful" to their true loves even if they thought there was no chance of meeting again.

David Nolan did something similar to Robin, but he was specifically mind-warped to be The Worst, as engineered by Regina. And Robin, without being under any curse, does the exact same thing to Regina (with real baby, instead of pregnancy scare!) that Regina cursed David into doing to Snow/MM?! I mean, it's kind of delicious irony if you think about it. And people didn't have any problems LAYING INTO David - and I think he was as much a victim as Robin, except not Kathryn's victim of course. But then, ALL of Storybrooke's relationships pre-122 were sketchy in term of consent.

[october]

I guess - and I stress that I 100% believe that Robin was a victim here - part of the "it's Robin's fault" mentality comes from the fact that he chose to sleep with Marian in the first place.

 

Only on this show would someone be punished for choosing to sleep with their own spouse.

 

 

I mean, it's kind of delicious irony if you think about it.

 

Then one of us needs our tastebuds checked because I detect nothing delicious about this. It tastes of cold ashes and dispair. Why? Because this show doesn't capitalise on that irony, which is what it would need to do in order to make it tasty. The irony exists, sure. But they don't do anything with it or have Regina make the connection. Instead she whines and whines and comes across looking like a hypocrite.

 

For the best part of a season Regina believed all this was happening to her because someone in a book thought she was a villain and should never be happy. She never stopped to realise that Snow and David went through something very similar because of her (even when Snow herself brought it up). We never saw her openly and honestly face the fact that she inflicted the same pain on Robin and Marian (and Emma and Graham) that Cora inflicted on her and Daniel. She killed Snow's father out of spite, but then rode Snow's ass over her killing Cora in defense of the entire town. She calls Emma out for 'ruining [her] life' which... ugh. She sulked over losing Henry but didn't spare a thought for all the parents she has separated (in some cases permanently) from their own kids. She didn't seem to get that Sidney tricking and betraying her is what she'd already done to him more than once. And what Robin has gone through hasn't made her confront and own up to what she did to Graham.

 

We've had enough 'Regina is a hypocrite' discussions on this board to know that the irony isn't being lost on anyone. The problem is it's leaving a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths.

[Shanna Marie]

Looking at the post above about the long-term consequences of evil acts, I think that there have also been some long-term consequences of supposedly good acts, and that's another area where the morality of this show gets really wonky.

 

Snow and Charming captured Regina and apparently even had a fair trial. They knew they couldn't hold her long-term with her magical powers, and they knew she was an ongoing threat. But Snow let her go with just a spell to keep her from hurting her and Charming. The show treats this like it was a good decision, that executing Regina would have been bad. But how many more people died because of that decision? How many lives were disrupted? If they'd executed her then, the curse never would have happened and the kingdom wouldn't have been devastated. But supposedly they made the right choice.

 

It was considered bad that Snow killed Cora. Never mind that Cora had already been murdering people in town and was on the verge of becoming the Dark One, which would have given her the power to murder even more people and probably be a tyrannical ruler. Heroes don't kill, so taking her out was bad.

 

Meanwhile, they were desperately scrambling to save Rumple's life from Hook's poisoning. Why? He was the mastermind behind the curse. He was the cruel landlord who'd held the town under his heel. He killed casually and gleefully. If they'd let him die then, especially if they'd let him die in Manhattan, they wouldn't be in the fix they're currently in.

 

Rumple made the grand gesture to choose Neal over power, which sounds nice. But it had horrible consequences. Neal died anyway after being trapped inside Rumple, which sounds like it must have been a horrible existence, and choosing Neal meant that Zelena had a pet Dark One she could use as a weapon against the people Neal loved. If Rumple had gone for the dagger instead of absorbing Neal (ew), he could probably have taken out Zelena then and there and saved them all a lot of trouble. But he showed that he finally chose Neal over power, so yay for him.

 

And then we have Robin risking his family (since goodness knows what would have happened to them if he'd been caught) to steal the elixir to heal Rumple. Why? It's not like he was killing Rumple. Rumple was dying due to the consequences of his lifetime of evil acts. Why scramble to save him from his own evil? Again, they wouldn't be in the mess they're in now if Robin had just laughed at him and gone back to his family.

 

I suppose all this fits with the current culture of grand gestures, where you get to call yourself a warrior for social justice for getting angry on Twitter, regardless of what the consequences of whatever feel-good overreaction you call for might be. But this is also why I've said that this show makes A Game of Thrones look like Sunday school, morally, because at least GOT shows that "honor" for the sake of honor and pride in being honorable isn't a virtue if it has negative consequences for others. The OUAT characters get to pat themselves on the back for being oh so noble, but the fact that their "good" actions have led to harm for others is totally forgotten.

[Curio]

Why aren't there any lawyers or judges in Storybrooke? Do these people even know how to run a proper trial? A sheriff's job is useless if there isn't a proper legal system set up to punish people for their crimes. 

[Camera One]

King George was a crooked lawyer.  I guess Emma was representing Mary Margaret in Season 1?  

[Curio]

I think Emma has proven to be a terrible person to handle justice and law when she puts Will in jail for stealing from a cash register but then lets Regina walk free after keeping Sydney locked in a cell against his will.

 

I'd like to see more legal cases pop up on the show. Imagine a defense attorney desperately trying to come up with a convincing case for why Zelena should be able to keep her baby.

[YaddaYadda]

Imagine a defense attorney desperately trying to come up with a convincing case for why Zelena should be able to keep her baby.

 

Or why she should be out of her prison.

 

"Your Honor, she allegedly committed the crime in the Enchanted Forest, and we have no extradition treaty with them!"

 

I'm not a lawyer btw, so don't jump on me for this.

Edited September 24, 2015 by YaddaYadda

[KingOfHearts]

 

I'd like to see more legal cases pop up on the show.

I'm really surprised Once Upon a Time isn't setup more like a cop/case-of-the-week show. That seems to be really popular with sci-fi fantasy shows like Continuum and Haven. Even though I'm not always a fan of that format, I'd like to see the fairy tail characters apply the American justice system to themselves. Maybe the villains could come up with ways to bend the law instead of jazz-handing people to death.

Edited September 24, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[Curio]

Storybrooke's magical users and villains remind me of those billionaire Wall Street crooks who will never serve a day in jail, while us normal citizens still have to follow the law. Poor, non-magical citizens...

 

I'm really surprised Once Upon a Time isn't setup more like a cop/case-of-the-week show. That seems to be really popular with sci-fi fantasy shows like Continuum and Haven.

I'm actually glad this show has avoided that format because it tends to get really repetitive, but once in a while we should be reminded that there's a legal system set up that these people need to follow. Right now, it's like the Wild West with villains always getting away with things.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Curio