Morality in Storybrooke / Social Issues: Threads Combined!

[Camera One]

Regina had magic.  Couldn't she have conjured up some fake hearts to crush?  Oh well, they were just FAKE PEOPLE.  

The way it was filmed, it did kinda look like she "accidentally" squeezed the hearts by accident.  Adds to the comic touch, I guess.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Camera One

[jhlipton]

1 minute ago, Rumsy4 said:

I'd say if you hold someone's heart in your hand, and squeeze, "accidents" happen. 

But an accident is not murder.  If a person skids on an icy road and hits a pedestrian, we don't say the driver murdered the pedestrian.  We wouldn't even say that if the driver was speeding.  Even a drunk driver who hits and kills someone isn't charged with murder.

[Camera One]

Accident or not, the Writers have made it clear on Twitter that Regina didn't murder anyone.  Because Snowing weren't real people but they were in a real world.  Very important distinction, apparently.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

2 minutes ago, Camera One said:

The way it was filmed, it did kinda look like she "accidentally" squeezed the hearts by accident.  Adds to the comic touch, I guess.

I'm 100% sure the writers thought that scene of Emma breaking down and sobbing as Regina threatened and crushed her parents hearts was funny in a "look how pathetic this Emma is" way.

[Mathius]

2 minutes ago, Camera One said:

Accident or not, the Writers have made it clear on Twitter that Regina didn't murder anyone.  Because Snowing weren't real people but they were in a real world.  Very important distinction, apparently.

And Robin is not a real person and yet Regina will insist he come to Storybrooke and live life there as if he is one.  Wait, what?

[Rumsy4]

3 minutes ago, jhlipton said:

But an accident is not murder.  If a person skids on an icy road and hits a pedestrian, we don't say the driver murdered the pedestrian.  

They would if they were intentionally playing with the car controls while parked in front of said pedestrian. 

[Souris]

39 minutes ago, jhlipton said:

Even a drunk driver who hits and kills someone isn't charged with murder.

Actually they can be -- vehicular homicide.

[KAOS Agent]

Would this show ever have Regina apologize to Cora and/or thank her for treating her the way she did because it made Regina who she is? 

Edited December 6, 2016 by KAOS Agent

[KingOfHearts]

(Guys, we really need a name for the wish realm. "Wish realm" sounds too pretentiously A&E.)

So, what makes the "wish realm" people fake? Do they lack souls? If they have hearts, can be killed, and have their own independent will/thought/emotions, how are they not considered sentient? I'm not arguing that they are, but if they are made of cardboard, how does that work? We'll probably explore that in 6B with Holodeck!Robin, but still. There's some moral implications here A&E probably didn't consider. We could be asking the same questions about the Evil Queen.

Speaking of the Holodeck, Star Trek explored this topic several times. What makes a person a person? Why can't androids or holograms be sentient after reaching a certain point of intelligence? Once Upon a Time never sticks around to ask those deep questions that may not have any satisfying answer. It always moves on to the next thing. It's a very half-baked method of storytelling.

Edited December 6, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

24 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

What makes a person a person? 

One step at a time.  This show is still working on the basics like "What is emotion?" and "What is the difference between 'friend' and 'attempted murderer'?"

Edited December 6, 2016 by Camera One

[Curio]

This discussion is giving me major Westworld morality vibes. 

[KingOfHearts]

Pretty sure My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is the only other fantasy show where heroes don't kill villains. (Even then, it's not explicitly stated.) I think it's funny that most Disney movies have pretty obscene villain deaths at the hands of heroes. Mulan's heart must be charred ashes since she slaughtered an entire army. Even without the rape and adult elements, some of the animated films were actually darker or more morbid than Once.

Edited December 16, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Shanna Marie]

4 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

Pretty sure My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is the only other fantasy show where heroes don't kill villains.

The weird thing is, sometimes heroes on this show kill. Nobody ever said so much as a word about David killing Percival, and he wasn't even a full-on villain. Or maybe that's why it was okay. There was minor debate about whether or not Regina should have killed the Count, but the usual "heroes don't kill people" folks were the ones reassuring her that she had no choice and she'd done it to save the Charmings. It was treated as a bold, heroic move for Hook to kill Jekyll (and Hyde) to save Belle, and Zeus brought Hook back to life because of his role in helping get Hades killed. Zelena killing Hades was considered a step on her path to maybe being a hero.

So they're wildly inconsistent about it, and it's not even all the Regina Exception Clause. Heroes don't kill people, unless they have to kill people to save people, which is heroic, unless it's bad and puts a dark spot on your heart.

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

So they're wildly inconsistent about it, and it's not even all the Regina Exception Clause. Heroes don't kill people, unless they have to kill people to save people, which is heroic, unless it's bad and puts a dark spot on your heart.

Charming and Hook seem to be the exceptions. If Henry, Emma, Regina or Snow kill someone in defense, it's "darkness". I still believe Emma killing Cruella was meant to be the catalyst for Dark Swan. It doesn't make any sense, but if you watch the execution, the narrative was trying to connect those dots. It's like, "Oh she's capable of darkness now! Imagine what she'll do as the Dark One!" It was just dumb.

Her Handsome Hero makes it weirder. Belle was all, "You can't kill Gaston!" to Rumple, even though he was doing it to defend himself, but then lo and behold - she killed Gaston to defend him. She's as wacko as Henry when it comes to morals, yet she still killed someone. That episode forever twisted her. 

Quote

 Zelena killing Hades was considered a step on her path to maybe being a hero.

I'm pretty sure she could get by with it because she wasn't a hero yet. If she becomes a hero, then killing will be wrong. Until then, she can make her own choices. She's one of the few characters allowed to have a brain... for now. I'm waiting for her to be sacrificed at the altar of Regina in 6B. 6x09 was the beginning, much like the dark spot scene in 2B with Snow and the BFF scene in 4x05 with Emma.

Edited December 16, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[KAOS Agent]

The writers claimed after that episode that Emma had crossed a line, which made zero sense. Apparently, they forgot that she threw Walsh off of her apartment building. Or that she killed a bunch of flying monkeys, which we know to have been human and unwilling slaves to Zelena. This wasn't Emma's first kill. It seems protecting your son is the absolute worst. I guess she was supposed to let Cruella harm Henry. Then she could be a hero. 

I kind of love these lines that the writers have that shouldn't be crossed. Rumpel murders his first wife (twice!), then stalks, imprisons and threatens his second wife, but the line from which he just can't come back if crossed is dosing Belle with the fetal SORAS potion. What even is this morality?

[Camera One]

Her Handsome Hero makes it weirder. Belle was all, "You can't kill Gaston!" to Rumple, even though he was doing it to defend himself, but then lo and behold - she killed Gaston to defend him. She's as wacko as Henry when it comes to morals, yet she still killed someone. That episode forever twisted her.

And yet Belle hasn't mentioned Gaston once, nor has she felt haunted by what she did, even if it was in self-defense.  Surely, "The Handsome Hero" would remind her of what happened.

The Writers regularly equate what Snow/Emma did with what Regina/Rumple did.  After seeing Cruella's car, Rumple said that a lot of people in Underbrooke because of "us".  So everyone shares the burden of his murders?  Just like Belle gets to say, what have "we" done to each other.  And of course Snow's "I was such a brat" as if that is equivalent to all that Regina has done to her.  

I kind of love these lines that the writers have that shouldn't be crossed. Rumpel murders his first wife (twice!), then stalks, imprisons and threatens his second wife, but the line from which he just can't come back if crossed is dosing Belle with the fetal SORAS potion. What even is this morality?

Rumple crossed all sorts of lines in 6A alone, but apparently, all relationships have their ups and downs.

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

Rumple crossed all sorts of lines in 6A alone, but apparently, all relationships have their ups and downs.

I mean, ya, my boyfriend imprisoned me on a boat and threatened to lobotomize my baby, but we hugged it out.

[Shanna Marie]

35 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

If Henry, Emma, Regina or Snow kill someone in defense, it's "darkness".

They were kind of inconclusive about Regina with the Count -- EQ claimed it was darkness, Regina worried about it for about 30 seconds, the others assured her she did what she had to do, and then it was totally forgotten, and EQ didn't follow up on it in her short-lived campaign to prove to Regina that she had darkness in her.

I think it mostly comes down to plot reasons -- heroes don't kill unless the plot requires them to, and it's okay if they aren't planning to do anything with it, but if the plot wants to show the person as dark, then it's bad for heroes to kill.

[Rumsy4]

39 minutes ago, KAOS Agent said:

It seems protecting your son is the absolute worst. I guess she was supposed to let Cruella harm Henry. Then she could be a hero. 

Apparently the fact that Cruella couldn't kill anyone made it murder. How on earth was Emma supposed to know that? And even if she knew, what a risk to take?! She is supposed to let Cruella hold a gun to Henry's head trusting that some magic quill nullified Cruella's chance of killing her son? There is no logic or meaning to their convoluted plots. 

[Camera One]

The moral compass shifts constantly on this show, so it's impossible to know where the line is next.  What's shrug-of-the-shoulder today is the worst of all evils tomorrow.

[Rumsy4]

The writers are manipulating their audience with their flip flopping, and pretending to write a morally complex show.

[Camera One]

This late into the show, you'd think they would at least keep things consistent, yet they break their own morality rules for no good reason.  Why exactly did Charming have to kill Percival?  I mean, within the same freak'in scene they can't even keep it consistent (Kill Fake Snowing *shrug*... then Fake Henry comes in, hands up, I'd rather die than hurt you).

[KingOfHearts]

20 minutes ago, Camera One said:

This late into the show, you'd think they would at least keep things consistent, yet they break their own morality rules for no good reason.  Why exactly did Charming have to kill Percival?  I mean, within the same freak'in scene they can't even keep it consistent (Kill Fake Snowing *shrug*... then Fake Henry comes in, hands up, I'd rather die than hurt you).

Yeah, Regina was totally fine with killing her son's grandparents, but not him. It's not like she hasn't killed his real grandparents in the past. *cough* Henry Sr. *cough* his great-grandfather Leopold *cough* But Snow killed his evil grandma who killed his other great grandparent, so it's all even, right? Now that I think about it, Henry's family have a habit of killing each other.

Cora killed Eva. Rumple killed Pan. King George (Henry's uncle's adoptive father) killed his grandmother Ruth with his soldiers. Rumple killed Milah. Regina killed Leopold and Henry Sr. Zelena killed Neal (Totally didn't, but whatever). Snow killed Cora. Charming killed James. If you factor in attempted murders, it's even more violent.

Edited December 16, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

If the issue is Regina couldn't get herself to kill her beloved Henry, even a facsimile, what does that say about how she killed her "friends" Snowing like it was nothing?  Not only did she not try to kill Henry, she wouldn't even defend herself or use magic to move away, which also made no sense.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

That's the line Regina couldn't cross. That shows what a freaking hero she is. Ask Rumple. He knows all about those kinds of lines.

[KingOfHearts]

3 minutes ago, Rumsy4 said:

Ask Rumple. He knows all about those kinds of lines.

For some reason, this made me think of Pirates of the Caribbean:

Quote

Elizabeth: "There will come a time when you have a chance to do the right thing."

Jack Sparrow: "I love those moments. I like to wave at them as they pass by."

Just swap them with Belle and Rumple. I could easily picture them saying that. The second part sounds like something Imp!Rumple would quip. 

Edited December 16, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[KingOfHearts]

Continuing my thoughts on OUAT's "moral lesson" quotes.

Quote

Charming: "True love isn't easy, but it must be fought for. Because once you find it, it can never be replaced."

Unless it's Zelena and Hades, then there's no fighting required.

Quote

Regina: "Evil isn't born. It's made. So is good."

Unless you're a lobotomized fetus who is destined to be the Savior, or Cruella.

Quote

Belle: "I learned a long time ago... When you find something that's worth fighting for, you never give up."

Quote

Belle: "No one decides my fate but me."

Yeah Belle, except Rumple isn't worth fighting for. He's just a jerk. Your husband decides your fate all the time. Just look at Milah... oh that's right. You can't, because he murdered her a second time.

Quote

Mary Margaret: "If True Love were easy, everyone would have it."

You're right about that, Mary Margaret. You are so right about that. *glares at Zades and Ruby Slippers*

Edited January 29, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[ParadoxLost]

On ‎1‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 6:59 PM, KingOfHearts said:

Quote

Charming: "True love isn't easy, but it must be fought for. Because once you find it, it can never be replaced."

Unless it's Zelena and Hades, then there's no fighting required.

Or if you are Regina and one Robin is as good as another.

On ‎1‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 6:59 PM, KingOfHearts said:

Regina: "Evil isn't born. It's made. So is good."

By an Author with a magic pen. 

[Shanna Marie]

A mental rabbit trail that struck me in church ... I know the real answer is bad writing, but within the story world, I wonder if their screwy morality has anything to do with the way their afterlife works. Most of the religions and belief systems in our world have a pretty clear-cut way of figuring out who goes where after death, and largely you have some control over it. It might be a case of being good or being bad, with a defined set of rules so you know what's good and bad and a system of sacrifices or atonements if you mess up. It might be repenting and accepting the grace of a savior and pledging yourself to the savior's service. It might be intercession by saints. It might be achieving enlightenment or fulfilling your cosmic purpose. But their afterlife is based on unfinished business -- if you have no unfinished business, you go straight to the good place. If you have unfinished business, you go to the Underworld. From there, you might be able to cross over into the good place if you carry out your unfinished business, but if you try to cross over with any remaining unfinished business, you go to the bad place. And anyone might get caught in the River of Lost Souls, so you're just lost forever. None of it really has anything to do with merit. It can even get into victim blaming. The murder victim who didn't get the chance to tell someone she loved him might be stuck in the Underworld because of unfinished business, since she was murdered before she got her chance, but the killer who carried out all his killing plans gets to avoid the Underworld entirely.

Or take the afterlife status of Neal and Hook. Yeah, we know the real reason is that Neal is no longer on the show and they needed to explain why they couldn't bring him back, while Hook is a show regular they needed to be able to bring back, but it's screwy when you think about it. Neal died when he raised the Dark One so that he could be reunited with his son and get to be  a father. His "sacrifice" was getting out of being trapped in his father (ew) so that Rumple could be sane enough to tell them who the Wicked Witch was, and although he kind of reconciled everything with Emma, he never saw his son again. But apparently that was enough for him to bypass the Underworld. On the other hand, Hook sacrificed himself, choosing to die to save Emma's family from the Dark Ones, take the Darkness out of Emma, and then end the Darkness forever. He told Emma he loved her. The only unfinished business he had was that Rumple siphoned off the Darkness, so Hook's death didn't end it. Was that what got him stuck in the Underworld instead of going straight to the good place? That would be awfully unfair if the thing keeping you out of heaven was something someone else did. Or was he there because he never got his revenge on Rumple?

Or what if there was no chance of resolving the unfinished business, like Milah, who was apparently in the Underworld because she abandoned her son, but her son bypassed the Underworld, so she didn't stand a chance of reconciling with him. And then she got knocked into the River of Souls. Sucks to be her, I guess. On the other hand, Daniel apparently moved on easily, but wouldn't he have had the unfinished business of never getting to be with his true love?

I guess if your afterlife is that random, then maybe it is possible that telling the truth is worse than murder (as this thread used to be titled). Telling the truth might lead to unfinished business for someone, or might create unfinished business for you, and that's more likely to get you stuck in the Underworld than killing someone, especially if killing resolves some unfinished business.

[Camera One]

For sure.  Who was in the Underworld and who wasn't was SOLELY determined by who A&E wanted to or needed to bring back.  It's not good to watch a show where every decision makes you think about external factors rather than internal.

[Curio]

38 minutes ago, Camera One said:

It's not good to watch a show where every decision makes you think about external factors rather than internal.

I don't think I've ever watched a show where I've thought of the external factors influencing writing decisions more than I have with OUAT.

[KingOfHearts]

12 minutes ago, Curio said:

I don't think I've ever watched a show where I've thought of the external factors influencing writing decisions more than I have with OUAT.

Freaking this. I can't even make a post on here without bringing the writing meta into it.

Quote

For sure.  Who was in the Underworld and who wasn't was SOLELY determined by who A&E wanted to or needed to bring back.  It's not good to watch a show where every decision makes you think about external factors rather than internal.

The Underworld has potential to make us very, very stabby. A&E were, in a most literal sense, playing god. They would probably make Eva go to hell for tripping Cora. Yet, I was never too appalled at who made it and who didn't. None of it made sense, and it was depressing, but it could have been much more offensive than it ended up being. Cora going into the light was a huge stretch, but it wasn't in a condescending way. She repented (or we're supposed to believe she did) and she was ready to accept her eternal damnation. She wasn't like Regina, who would fully expect and demand a spot in Olympus because she's such a hero. I'm not saying Cora deserved it, just that the repercussions could be so much worse. Her going to hell wouldn't have fit the narrative well. Yet, I think the best option was just leaving her in the Underworld for a while, using the time to make amends with her other victims. Maybe she did already and we didn't see it. I don't know.

Edited February 13, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[CCTC]

18 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

Cora going into the light was a huge stretch, but it wasn't in a condescending way. She repented (or we're supposed to believe she did) and she was ready to accept her eternal damnation. She wasn't like Regina, who would fully expect and demand a spot in Olympus because she's such a hero. I'm not saying Cora deserved it, just that the repercussions could be so much worse. Her going to hell wouldn't have fit the narrative well. Yet, I think the best option was just leaving her in the Underworld for a while, using the time to make amends with her other victims. Maybe she did already and we didn't see it. I don't know.

I thought a good compromise would have been her not going into the light or falling into a fiery pit, but leave the view of where she was going vague or obscured.   I can see why they did not want to show her getting damned to hell, but did some horrible things and just because she finally realized and acknowledged this did not seem quite enough that she was deserving of a hero's exit (esp. compared to the fates of people like Auntie Em, and the first Mrs. Gold).  There should have been something to imply she still had some work to do before she made it to the penthouse level in the afterlife.  I suspect her getting her reward was more about Regina having a tearful happy moment that it was about Cora herself.

[Rumsy4]

5 minutes ago, CCTC said:

I suspect her getting her reward was more about Regina having a tearful happy moment that it was about Cora herself.

Boom.

[Curio]

47 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

She wasn't like Regina, who would fully expect and demand a spot in Olympus because she's such a hero. I'm not saying Cora deserved it, just that the repercussions could be so much worse. 

I think Regina's internal dialogue would tell herself she deserves a spot in Olympus, but the A&E-written finale would make her look like a hero and disregard every other script that came before it. The other writers would probably spend the entire season making Regina whiny about not having her way 100%, but in the final emotional eleventh hour, she'd do a 180 and proclaim, "I deserve all of this! This was all my fault! I accept my fate!" And then A&E manipulate the gullible portion of the audience into believing Regina's tears and make them think she's truly repenting her past sins, but exactly one episode later Regina will be right back to where she started and her narcissism will tell her she deserves everything and more.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Curio

[Shanna Marie]

6 minutes ago, CCTC said:

I can see why they did not want to show her getting damned to hell, but did some horrible things and just because she finally realized and acknowledged this did not seem quite enough that she was deserving of a hero's exit (esp. compared to the fates of people like Auntie Em, and the first Mrs. Gold).  There should have been something to imply she still had some work to do before she made it to the penthouse level in the afterlife.  I suspect her getting her reward was more about Regina having a tearful happy moment that it was about Cora herself.

Yeah, the contrast between the fates of Cora and other people like Milah and Auntie Em was part of what made Cora's glorious ascent into something that looked like heaven even more distasteful. There's something really awful about being murdered after death, especially in the case of Milah where the same person murdered her twice and got away with it both times. It also didn't help that even though they weren't really calling it heaven and tried to avoid a good vs. bad theology to it, when your imagery is that some people ascend to a white, glowing place above and other people are dropped into a lake of fire, you can't help but think "heaven" and "hell." And there's still the problem that who goes where is rather arbitrary. Maybe if the imagery were more neutral or original it might have worked -- just leaving the Underworld rather going to any kind of "heaven" or "hell," like if a bus or train came through town, and the people getting to move on got a ticket, with just the implication of getting to leave Underbrooke rather than a sense of cosmic fate. But then I guess they wouldn't have had the suspense about Regina worrying about her father's fate. They needed to have a "bad place" to have a threat, which then meant there also needed to be a "good place."

It's funny, not too long after that episode aired, I was at a writing conference where they had a panel of actual teens talking about what teen fiction -- what they're looking for, what their pet peeves are, etc. Except they ended up mostly talking about TV tropes rather than books. One girl went on this epic rant about hating when there was serious injustice, especially the way so many writers like to try to redeem the villain, but the redemption isn't earned. Her example was very obviously Cora because she went on and on about a character being a terrible, abusive mother who had abandoned a child in order to have a better social position and who murdered her other daughter's boyfriend so that she could force her to marry a king, and she was a mass murderer who had tried to be the Dark One, but then she gets to go to heaven just because she said she was sorry to her daughters. I had a really hard time not bursting into a giggle fit when I knew exactly what she was talking about. She was trying to make it sound like a generic pet peeve, but it was so very specific.

[Camera One]

What was really distasteful to me was how they made it seem like Cora's worst action in life was erasing her daughters' memories of their epic friendship.

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

What was really distasteful to me was how they made it seem like Cora's worst action in life was erasing her daughters' memories of their epic friendship.

I thought the whole Sisters episode featuring the Mills family reunion really worked for me, so what do I know. It served its own purpose, but outside of that there were caveats. First, as Camera One said, the whole erasing memories thing did not deserve to be Cora's unfinished business against everything else she did. (Even if you only consider how she treated her daughters.) Secondly, Regina and Zelena's reconciliation was limited by the heat of the moment. There was no lasting reward, which rendered Cora's gesture meaningless. In of itself, the episode was emotional and satisfying to me. Beyond it, there's some serious moral implications.

I do believe Cora's ascension was mostly REC, but it doesn't hurt as much if you don't think about it.

Edited February 13, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

The episode actually did succeed in pulling at my heartstrings, and that was clearly the intention and what the Writers' were counting on.  They were writing a story for people who loved Zelena, Cora and Regina as much as they did.  I don't really fall into that category, but they pulled all the strings that landed me close enough to the emotional impact zone to feel something at the end of the episode.

It's looking at the grander scheme of things where the unfairness of this "world" starts to be disturbing.  People's Unfinished Business were more about the dead individual's own regrets versus their damage to humankind.  Cora's main regret was how she impacted her own daughters, so once she was able to make them BFF's again, her Unfinished Business was done.  

[Rumsy4]

28 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

Regina and Zelena's reconciliation was limited by the heat of the moment.

It epically fell apart an extremely short while later. Cora should be made to go back to Underbrooke and stew over her unfinished business again! lol

[CCTC]

I agree, the episode as a stand-alone worked well (esp. if you could ignore everything Cora did outside the episode).  I think a lot of that had to do with Hershey's performance.

They really did drop the ball with follow-up from the episode with Regina and Zelina in subsequent episodes.

[Souris]

11 minutes ago, CCTC said:

They really did drop the ball with follow-up from the episode with Regina and Zelina in subsequent episodes.

It's like a freaking ball pit at Chuck E. Cheese around the writers' room.

[Curio]

15 minutes ago, CCTC said:

They really did drop the ball with follow-up from the episode with Regina and Zelina in subsequent episodes.

Responding in the relationships thread.

[Shanna Marie]

49 minutes ago, CCTC said:

They really did drop the ball with follow-up from the episode with Regina and Zelina in subsequent episodes.

That also brings up the question of what counts as being reformed? Usually, the way you show that a character has grown or reformed is by putting them in a situation similar to the one they previously failed in and show that they handle it a different way now. Hook was a good example of that. His weakness in the past has been his thirst for revenge, that when he feels wronged, his impulse is to devote his entire life to revenge. He also has been shown (in just about every flashback) consistently choosing his revenge over helping others, even when the person he might have helped has done him no wrong. He would screw over anyone in order to do something he thought furthered his revenge. Dealing with Arthur in the Underworld was a test for him. Arthur had essentially killed him, so Hook had a good reason to want revenge on him, but he not only helped him, but he put his own mission at risk, choosing to save Arthur over getting the book. Plus, in spite of Rumple wronging him yet again, he didn't head off on another revenge quest.

But with Regina and Zelena, they came up with a situation that closely paralleled the one that sent Regina on the wrong path in the first place. The man she loved was killed, and someone she had a family-like relationship with might have been considered indirectly responsible. But instead of making a different choice, she did the exact same thing with Zelena that she did with Snow, blaming the person indirectly responsible rather than the actual killer. In fact, the situation with Zelena is worse than what happened with Snow because Zelena went on to kill the killer, even though he was the man she loved, and Regina was the one who set up the situation. Zelena's "responsibility" was only her doing what Regina had suggested she do. So they flat-out showed that Regina, who has "come so far," hasn't actually changed one bit and might actually be worse.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

17 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

It's funny, not too long after that episode aired, I was at a writing conference where they had a panel of actual teens talking about what teen fiction -- what they're looking for, what their pet peeves are, etc. Except they ended up mostly talking about TV tropes rather than books. One girl went on this epic rant about hating when there was serious injustice, especially the way so many writers like to try to redeem the villain, but the redemption isn't earned.

Responding in Writers thread.

[Camera One]

1 minute ago, Rumsy4 said:

It goes back to still-prevalent sexist ideas about marriage. For all the "strong women" Adam and Eddy claim to write, their so-called strong women can be pretty weak, and it is reinforced in the writing. Regina's "strength" comes from being overly-powered over her victims. Belle's claims of wanting to be independent and explore the world are thrown away by her toxic obsession with redeeming Rumple. Emma's strength is undermined by her tame acceptance of Regina's verbal bashings, etc.. Women are fridged (Marian). Male-rape is never punished, etc.. I can't tell you how many people still believe that Rumple and Belle should be together simply becasue they are married, and that Rumple was totally justified in murdering Milah (twice) becasue she chose to leave her family. It's just so sad... 

I'm going to reply in this thread, because this is so true.  A&E constantly claim the show is about "strong women" but many of the strong women they particularly love gain their "strength" from the exploitation of others, from Cora to Zelena to Cruella to The Evil Queen.  In fact, they showed in the Season 5 finale that Regina was not strong enough to suppress glee over doing evil and brought back The Evil Queen, which shows incredible weakness.  

This season alone, we've had Emma doubting herself episode after episode, gaining strength usually when a previous enemy (Regina) or a male character gives her a pep talk (whether it be August, Hook or Henry).  

Snow is given inspirational lines but the general pattern is she is portrayed as completely pathetic and passive.  They even had her give up her Mayoral role with zero explanation in favor of a more female-appropriate job like teaching.  

Violet was portrayed as flighty and moody.  Zelena was an instant turncoat.  Belle was as wishy-washy as ever.  Blue was weak because evil women > good women.  Jasmine couldn't save Agrabah without her man.  Charlotte and Jekyll's love interest were killed off thanks to the ever "entertaining" Rumple's machination.

This show is messed up in so many ways...

[tennisgurl]

You know what gets me about this show? Its shockingly dark...but the writers don't really seem to realize that. Look at the whole Graham mess. The writers created a scenario when a women used a guy as a sex slave for years in TWO realities, brainwashed him into sleeping with her and doing awful things in her name, and when he finally got free, she murdered him in cold blood. Dark stuff, right? Well, the writers seem to be mystified by how messed up the audience found this to be, and clearly found the whole thing to just not be that big of a deal. Its been how long, and its been brought up how often? Or, speaking of magical consent, Arthur basically used magic roofies on his wife, and yeah he was supposed to be a villain, but they never gave Gwen any closure, and they never seemed to really have anyone acknowledge what a messed up thing he did to his wife. Hell, we have a main character who has murdered and tortured so many people that she literally cant remember all of them, and that's all just brushed aside! Really, I'm not even complaining about Regina's awful redemption arc, I'm just saying that's a really dark backstory for her, but now all her stories are about finding love or crap like that. Emma was manipulated and betrayed by Neal and August and spent years old jail (including giving birth while handcuffed to a bed!), and that's just considered a standard part of why she took so long getting to Storybrooke. Or when the Count came by, and Regina was forced to kill him, even though he was being controlled and his actions weren't really his fault. Regina killed a guy, and it was just considered the semi tragic ending of a one shot character who we will never see again. We go back to our light fairytale tone again like it never happened.

I'm not against darkness on TV. I'm a big fan of shows like Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, The Wire, American Crime, and other MUCH grimmer shows, but those shows actually don't seem as dark to me, because the writers actually know that they're writing something dark and disturbing, and they show follow up when bad things happen, and treat these awful situations are dramatic and life changing. The Once writers just bumble into murder, rape, and misery, sometimes out of total accident, and sometimes without any interest in looking at the consequences of any of it. The tone is all over the place.

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

The Once writers just bumble into murder, rape, and misery, sometimes out of total accident, and sometimes without any interest in looking at the consequences of any of it. The tone is all over the place.

Even Disney movies have more consequences, and that's really saying something.

[Shanna Marie]

3 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

Or when the Count came by, and Regina was forced to kill him, even though he was being controlled and his actions weren't really his fault. Regina killed a guy, and it was just considered the semi tragic ending of a one shot character who we will never see again. We go back to our light fairytale tone again like it never happened.

This reminds me of a line from an interview that was mentioned in the spoilers thread (though this part isn't spoilery) about how Regina and Hook's pasts keep catching up with them. But when you think about it, Regina's past doesn't catch up with her. Losing Robin had nothing to do with her past (other than maybe karma). The Count coming by only really had consequences for him, not for Regina and what she did to him. The Charmings didn't waste a second of grief over the death of their former friend. All Snow could do was reassure Regina about doing what she had to do. Percival was Regina's past catching up, but Robin was the one who was hurt by that, and then Emma risking her soul to heal him. Well, and I guess Percival also was hurt, since he was killed, and no one cared about what had happened to him.

Now, with Hook, his past really does keep catching up with him, and he is forced to face the people he's wronged. Strangely, it seems less dark than all the innocents who keep dying around Regina as the result of her past actions while nobody notices or cares. There's some hope in the fact that what these people suffered matters, and then something is done to make things better -- Hook nearly got killed by an angry Ursula, but ultimately Ursula gets her voice back and is reconciled with her father; Hook nearly gets killed by Liam 2.0, but Liam changes his mind and doesn't go down his brother's path into revenge and is reunited with Nemo; Hook is endangered in the Underworld by the sailors Liam 1.0 wronged on his behalf, but they're all able to be reconciled, and Liam and the crew get to move on in the afterlife; now we'll see what happens with David, but he's already helped keep David off the revenge path, at the risk of his own life.

[Camera One]

They need two support groups in Storybrooke.  The "My Father Was Murdered" support group.  And the "I Killed My Own Father" support group.

Edited March 19, 2017 by Camera One