Morality in Storybrooke / Social Issues: Threads Combined!

[KingOfHearts]

Frankly I believe it would be stupid not to kill Rumple if he returned. He's a threat to the whole town, and Hook and the lack of fairies are proof of that. Every single citizen knows the horrors Rumple has enacted in the past, and recent events prove he's still committing those crimes. What's even more dangerous is that he's got a new bone to pick now. He's a public menace, just like Regina was after her throne was taken.

[legaleagle53]

 

Honestly, that's probably the way it'll play out until the series ends. Ever since Regina proclaimed "Heroes don't kill," there's no way one of the core main characters will have a hand in killing a big bad again. Unless they want to shift Regina back to being more villainous like Rumple, of course.

 

But if a big bad has Emma trapped in a corner and they're about to shoot deadly magic at her, should she not be able to shoot magic back at them? Should she feel guilty if her magic is powerful enough to kill them? Should she stifle her magic just enough to paralyze them, but not to kill them? What if she can't control her powers enough to make that distinction? Shouldn't Emma, as the "savior," know that the town is safer with her alive versus keeping the villain alive? Or what if Hook sees Emma cornered by that big bad, but can only stop them by using his sword? Is Hook shifted back into the villain column because he killed the bad guy who was about to kill Emma? Would Belle be considered a villain if one day she realizes Rumple's villainous plan and the only way to stop him is to kill him? Is Charming allowed to shoot a big bad who's trying to murder baby Neal? Where do we draw the line?

 

 

This I would be cool with. More villains should get some comeuppance for something they orchestrated themselves. (They kind of went there with the Snow Queen, but she recognized the error of her ways and the audience was supposed to feel sad for her. I want a villain where their ultimate doomsday device/plan backfires and ends up stopping them for good.)

 

That was the one thing that I regretted about the Snow Queen's demise.  Because she attained true redemption through sincere repentance (unlike a certain other Queen who shall remain nameless), I wouldn't have minded if she had been able to stay in Storybrooke. She would have been the show's only truly redeemed villain, and it would have been awesome seeing her learn to use her considerable powers for good.  In other words, she earned "hero" status in my eyes, and I would even have rooted for her to have a real happy ending at some point.

Edited December 31, 2014 by legaleagle53

[The Cake is a Pie]

I was with you up until that point. Angry mobs aren't usually a force of justice, so I think it's important how the whole town decided this.

It doesn't have to be an angry mob scenario. I doubt Rumple would just stroll back into town casually like, hey, what did I miss while I was gone, and they all chase him with pitchforks. He's going to be up to something. If the town decides to do something about him being back, whether it's imprisonment, banishment, death, then whatever, as long as it's not one individual deciding to take him on for a personal vendetta.

[YaddaYadda]

But Rumple will eventually be excused for his behavior and forgiven because Zelena, because Neal.  I mean Regina was a freakin' menace and she was forgiven for everything she has done (by Snow more so than David it seems given that he enjoys reminding her of things she has done here and there).  They already have that whole excuse ready to go for Rumple.  Never mind he wanted to put Emma in a hat, ordered to do just that to the fairies and then tried to crush Hook's heart all the while telling how if he got over Milah, he can get over Emma too and he more than anyone should understand needing Emma.

 

Everyone will be like but his son died and Zelena tortured him.  Hook took zero issue with Rumple trying to drown him or sending him flying through the air along with Emma when they showed up to try and save baby do over because he understood that Rumple was under Zelena's control.  The show will go down the PTSD road for Rumple and everyone will be like oh well, welcome back Mr. Gold, here's your pawnshop, your big house, your wife back even though he is already up to his neck with whatever he is planning with the Queens of Darkness (what a freakin' silly name writers, seriously!)

[KingOfHearts]

(what a freakin' silly name writers, seriously!)

 

 

Come to the dark side - it's Rumple's Angels. ;)

[Shanna Marie]

When talking about Hook going after Rumple, I wasn't thinking in terms of him heading off to track him down after Belle kicked Rumple out of town. Rather, if Rumple comes rolling back into town with his trio of evil sidekicks, which would be a bad sign on multiple fronts (him finding a way back, him having backup), would it be revenge, justice, or self/other defense for Hook to go on the offensive? For the sake of his soul, it would be best if he's acting out of concern for what will happen to Belle and to any magical beings Rumple might want to use, but the actions would look the same as long as he's not prolonging pain just to make Rumple suffer (however, I think he's allowed to use the dagger to make Rumple cluck like a chicken in the middle of Main Street because Rumple really has it coming).

 

I would hope that Hook has learned his lesson about revenge. He had his Come to Jesus moment in that locker when he fully believed he'd succeeded in achieving his revenge and realized it didn't make anything better and that he'd thrown away his life in the meantime. Plus, although he was harmed this time around, he still has Emma. The first two times he turned to revenge, it was because he had nothing left to live for. If we weren't dealing with a case of this show, these writers, I'd say this was the perfect structural setup to prove that he's learned his lesson and truly changed because the third time's the charm. He lost Liam and threw away his naval career to turn pirate in revenge because he believed he'd lost everything. Then he met Milah and realized that he did still have a life. Then he lost Milah and felt like he'd lost everything all over again, but he hadn't learned from the first time, so he went on the revenge downward spiral. Now he seemingly has learned and changed, and he's being presented with another situation, with the key difference being that he only nearly lost Emma, and he was the one directly wronged and in danger. I would hope he wouldn't risk losing Emma to get revenge, and I'd hope he's smart enough to realize he'd risk losing Emma rather than arrogant enough to think he could have his revenge and keep Emma.

 

I'm a little worried by his talk about getting Rumple back, or was that just bluster? At the time, he thought he was truly going to die and he was utterly helpless. All he could do was sass and snark, so in that situation, talking about tracking Rumple down in hell and making him pay shouldn't necessarily mean that he's changed his mind about the value of revenge.

 

As for the idea of mob justice, I think that depends on context. Going after Elsa just because she's the unknown outsider is a mob. But considering Rumple's history and his power, if the townspeople banded together to confront him when he returned, that seems more like it would count as a militia to defend themselves. They know exactly who he is and what he's done. I think the situation with Regina when the curse initially broke was similar. They were responding in anger, but she had horribly wronged them and they had a right to want to bring her to justice. She'd actually already been sentenced to death.

 

That's part of the problem with these supercharged recurring character quasi-villains -- it's almost impossible for there to be any justice because the victims can't really do much against them. If they don't want to sit in a jail cell, they aren't going to. Everyone else is just forced to put up with them and hope they're on their best behavior.

[Actionmage]

She would have been the show's only truly redeemed villain, and it would have been awesome seeing her learn to use her considerable powers for good.

 

(italics mine)

That is exactly why Ingrid had to die on the show-- we are only allowed one "redeemed" villain. We cannot have an equal or anyone approaching a light magic "opposite number" because  why would the heroes go to Regina or Rumple? With their histories, logically, they wouldn't and there you go again, making the villains look like villains!

 

For the sake of his soul, it would be best if he's acting out of concern for what will happen to Belle and to any magical beings Rumple might want to use, but the actions would look the same as long as he's not prolonging pain just to make Rumple suffer (however, I think he's allowed to use the dagger to make Rumple cluck like a chicken in the middle of Main Street because Rumple really has it coming).

 

 

IA, it is intent, as has been mentioned here, that determines justice or revenge. I also think Killian's also pragmatic to not go by himself. He may not want to take Emma, but he might take David and Will. I think that Hook working from a protective stance, that counts as justice. I would feel better for Hook if he was not an arbiter of justice, but I understand conservation of characters. (David or Emma, who have had both pleasant and horrid interactions with Rumple would be better, in my mind. )

 

if the townspeople banded together to confront him when he returned, that seems more like it would count as a militia to defend themselves. They know exactly who he is and what he's done. I think the situation with Regina when the curse initially broke was similar. They were responding in anger, but she had horribly wronged them and they had a right to want to bring her to justice. She'd actually already been sentenced to death.

 

The italicized section I agree with. It was why I was so angry at them over Red's frame-up, that King George could get them to turn so thoroughly on someone they had obviously trusted enough to run him and Regina off their respective thrones. A pitchforks and torches mob as a Rumple Welcome Wagon? That's just plain pragmatic.

 

it's almost impossible for there to be any justice because the victims can't really do much against them. If they don't want to sit in a jail cell, they aren't going to. Everyone else is just forced to put up with them and hope they're on their best behavior.

 

 

That is why I have lost trust and faith in these writers to tell a good story: They can have Regina be evil, they can have a redeemed Regina, but there is no one to hold her to her promises. When/if Regina gets whatever, it means nothing, in my eyes, because she hasn't really given anything up but Sidney, not that she was impressed with Sidney all that much as it was.

 

Elementary recently had recovering addict Sherlock have his NA meeting anonymity violated by a well-meaning fellow NAer. The man took phrases that were obviously Sherlocks and made a blog to inspire others in recovery, as the blogger had been.  Sherlock took exception because he wasn't consulted and did not want attention paid to him; he wanted to be as anonymous as the others in his meetings. Eventually the man was persuaded to take down the site, but Sherlock was shown feeling that he could not share, at least not so soon after this incident.  All of that to say that Regina has not been shown to actually grapple with trying to achieve the heroism she claims to want.  The lasagna rejection sent Regina into her mother's arms. She misses her son after a couple of days, so that's why she rips her own heart out after 28 years. Marion's return sends her into blame Emma mode and how-can-I-kill/rid-myself-of-this-troublesome-wife mode, so much so that she pulls Sidney out of stasis in order to scheme!  On-screen, I have seen no grappling with her morality. The shift to The Author is just stupid and still misses the point. The sad part is that I don't think A&E care about that.  Just as long as Regina is dressed fabulously and snarkalicious, she can do no wrong.

[Faemonic]

When talking about Hook going after Rumple, I wasn't thinking in terms of him heading off to track him down after Belle kicked Rumple out of town. Rather, if Rumple comes rolling back into town with his trio of evil sidekicks, which would be a bad sign on multiple fronts (him finding a way back, him having backup), would it be revenge, justice, or self/other defense for Hook to go on the offensive? For the sake of his soul, it would be best if he's acting out of concern for what will happen to Belle and to any magical beings Rumple might want to use, but the actions would look the same as long as he's not prolonging pain just to make Rumple suffer

A standoff and a battle is just the way it's going to go. It could be for vengeance, justice, and self-defense. I think this because Hook's been in the military, and I don't know how Black Spot Heart he took any of his enemies' deaths or how he's carried that value over the centuries--but I imagine that it's just what Hook would do in a situation like that. Liege or no liege, he's a walking weapon with short-term agendas: kill bad thing, know where the wind is blowing to get you to kill bad thing. (Of course, Hook would also heed the flower children getting between them and preaching second chances, a whitewashing of the past, and a perilous future that will cause so much suffering to offscreen people and peasants, lives less important than the feelings of the villains...because you know that would be forthcoming.)

 

(however, I think he's allowed to use the dagger to make Rumple cluck like a chicken in the middle of Main Street because Rumple really has it coming).

 

I kept waiting for the moment that Hook would get the dagger from Zelena during that arc. Like, Zelena's obviously a threat, but Hook had witnessed Rumple sacrifice himself to save them all from Pan and I would like to think he had the empathy to be pained at what a high price there finally was to being The Dark One under magical control of Zelena all the time. And Nealfire died. So, Hook with the Dark One's dagger in those circumstances? Awkward.

 

But that never happened, and Hook and Rumple didn't talk again until Hook suspected Rumple of lying to Belle, because Hook is perceptive about those things.

 

I can't even imagine what their exchanges might have been like when Rumple hog-tied Hook to stick in the boot of his car, and then released him. For them both to continue snarking after Nealfire's death would be a boring resistance to character development, and I certainly don't expect them to have dueled and wrestled without magic until they were exhausted, hugged it out, shared a flask of rum, and sworn to join forces against Zelena...but, you know, this show.

 

If Hook does regress to that sadistically jolly drunken bully who bumped into the Dark One in an alley and thought a little peasant-kicking would be so funny, of course I'd be disappointed but unsurprised. Because even Rumple's development back to full villain came off as so inorganic to me even with my Zelena Trauma headcanon.

 

I would hope he wouldn't risk losing Emma to get revenge, and I'd hope he's smart enough to realize he'd risk losing Emma rather than arrogant enough to think he could have his revenge and keep Emma.

 

This and regressing to Rumple's public humiliation depends on plot demands, I think. With Will, Hook seems to think that he can keep secrets and keep Emma.

 

I'm a little worried by his talk about getting Rumple back, or was that just bluster? At the time, he thought he was truly going to die and he was utterly helpless. All he could do was sass and snark, so in that situation, talking about tracking Rumple down in hell and making him pay shouldn't necessarily mean that he's changed his mind about the value of revenge.

 

I consider Hook immensely emotive and short-sighted. Colin did say early on the series that Hook was a live-in-the-moment kind of a guy, even though, obviously, that moment can be emotionally informed by something that happened centuries ago. He's still impulsive. He burned the Pegasus sail as some symbolic gesture of rebellion. That wasn't smart! Instead of letting Rumple suffer Belle's memory-wipe and Nealfire's rejection for even a fraction more time of however long Hook suffered Milah's death...he decides that time's up and poisons Rumple just because he hates that guy so much. How did he even find them? It's like physical laws bend around Killian Jones' impulsivity. Then he blackmailed the Dark One, not for anything urgent and important like making a magic-using royal like Queen Elsa of Arandell feel more at home, but because he wanted to look good on his first date with Emma. Captain Facepalm.

 

So...I guess you've got to catch Hook in the moment that he's sustaining some inner torment enough that he would act out. Whatever the inner fuse breaks to his Vengeance levels are, they've done their job. He didn't even get to give Zelena a stern talking-to.

Edited January 1, 2015 by Faemonic

[YaddaYadda]

A standoff and a battle is just the way it's going to go. It could be for vengeance, justice, and self-defense. I think this because Hook's been in the military, and I don't know how Black Spot Heart he took any of his enemies' deaths or how he's carried that value over the centuries--but I imagine that it's just what Hook would do in a situation like that. Liege or no liege, he's a walking weapon with short-term agendas: kill bad thing, know where the wind is blowing to get you to kill bad thing.

 

Hook thread ahoy.

[Faemonic]

KingofHearts over at the Continuity and Nitpicks thread wrote:

 

 

Well, a lot of the legends/fables/mythology are based off religious ideas. Grimm's fairy tales has a lot of religious references throughout, and so do Robin Hood and Arthurian legend. It's just part of the source material. That's why is makes sense for Enchanted Forest residents to make references.

 

I agree, but politics and social issues (the name of this thread, whoo!) has made religion such a charged topic that I can see why the showrunners would want to concentrate on either the principle of belief, hope, trust, faith, and all that...or, flesh out beliefs that nobody believe-believes.

 

Aladdin, for example, was an addition to the Arabian Nights by some French guy who heard it from an Arabian guy who set it somewhere "furthest East"; but everyone knows that it was an Arabian guy telling the story and that it didn't take place in Japan or China because there was no mention of Buddhism and a lot of mention of Allah.

 

Put Princess Jasmine and The Blue Nun Fairy in the same scene, and I'd even find it weird that they don't address the Ganesh in the room. But of course they wouldn't, and not only because it's always Apocalypse Time in Storybrooke, but because religion is such a charged topic and I gather that the creators just want to take these stories and have fun with them.

 

So...it's all kept super vague, and I guess that's the best they can do. It bugs me as much as the queerbaiting, because if they wanted to update the gender politics from the 15th century where these fairy tales might have been dated, then come on, just do it already. If they're going to make Ursula a goddess and then demote her to villain of the week...ehh. But, here we have it.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Faemonic

[Camera One]

I was watching "Batman Forever" and I had forgotten Batman's mantra of no killing, even megavillains who are constantly threatening the city and killing civilians.  If someone that macho has that code, I don't mind that the Fairy Tale heroes like Elsa, Emma or Snow also lean towards it.  

 

Robin wanted to kill Two-Face as revenge for the death of his family, but Batman counselled him not to.  So later, when Robin came face to face with Two-Face, who was hanging off the edge of a cliff, Robin thinks back to what Batman said and instead of letting him die, Robin saves him, but of course Two-Face then captured him.  I found it funny and ironic that when the film ends and Two-Face is about to kill them, Batman throws a bunch of coins into the air, which confuses Two-Face and he plummets to his death, and Batman didn't make any move to save him, which kind of seems against his original message.  I wouldn't mind that type of death for villains on "Once" but it needs to be thought through a little better.

 

Edited January 4, 2015 by Camera One

[KAOS Agent]

Even if they avoid direct mention of religion in the show, they use a lot of religious symbolism. There's a podcast moderated by a priest that particularly in Season 1 spent a lot of time detailing and discussing the religious symbolism and biblical stories they felt were being told. Once the show became mostly shallow fantasy plots and less deep and complex about its storytelling, the podcast became just another in the bunch of people discussing the show, but the early episodes of this show led to some really interesting analysis from someone intimately acquainted with the bible.

[jhlipton]

I was watching "Batman Forever" and I had forgotten Batman's mantra of no killing, even megavillains who are constantly threatening the city and killing civilians.

 

It's a dumb code.  The deaths caused by these villains can be laid on Batman for not taking them out when he had the chance.  I'm as opposed to the death penalty as anyone, but it needs to be applied to the Joker, the Penguin, and the rest of the lot.

[Faemonic]

It's a dumb code.  The deaths caused by these villains can be laid on Batman for not taking them out when he had the chance.  I'm as opposed to the death penalty as anyone, but it needs to be applied to the Joker, the Penguin, and the rest of the lot.

I doubt we can blame Batman for Arkham Asylum's shoddy security, sub-standard professional psychoanalysts, and Gotham's Swiss Cheese legal system.

 

But I can totally blame Snow and Charming for not even being a democratic monarchy. The Sheriff's Station should be renamed the Shady Station what with Emma keeping someone under arrest and starving them for crashing her date.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Faemonic

[myril]

The Sheriff's Station should be renamed the Shady Station what with Emma keeping someone under arrest and starving them for crashing her date.

 

Graham put Emma into jail when she probably should have been in hospital. Regardless that he assumed, that Emma was drunken and crashed her car because of that, she was unconscious and more than sure should have been checked by a doctor, he could have chained her in the hospital, she didn't belong into that cell. Typical small town sheriff, I would say, busy to keep the drunk of the street (yeah for cliches and prejudice).

 

But I never took it as Will being put away for crashing the date: Will broke into the library, Belle found him there in the morning sleeping it off, and she called for Emma to come. I know, what Emma said to Will when he woke up, but that was typical sarcastic Emma. Will promised to be trouble (the day before she found him snooping the camp of the Merry Men and he later broke with ease into the Icecream cafe, where he then choose to disappear on Emma and David), so Emma took the chance to lock him up and try to get more information out of him when she had a plausible enough reason to lock him up. In some places people can be charged for loitering and prowling, a minor misdemeanor usually, but can get you into jail.

[myril]

Even if they avoid direct mention of religion in the show, they use a lot of religious symbolism. There's a podcast moderated by a priest that particularly in Season 1 spent a lot of time detailing and discussing the religious symbolism and biblical stories they felt were being told. Once the show became mostly shallow fantasy plots and less deep and complex about its storytelling, the podcast became just another in the bunch of people discussing the show, but the early episodes of this show led to some really interesting analysis from someone intimately acquainted with the bible.

 

Do you have a link to that podcast? That take on season 1 would interest me.

 

I cringed the first time they called Emma savior, that word is highly charged with religion (Emma would be more like Moses, leading the people (back) to their promised land, aka their happy endings...), and do every time they use the word.

Edited January 4, 2015 by katusch

[jhlipton]

I doubt we can blame Batman for Arkham Asylum's shoddy security, sub-standard professional psychoanalysts, and Gotham's Swiss Cheese legal system.

 

Batman knows the city he lives in.  He doesn't even try to have his enemies locked up in a SuperMax.  I think at least a few are Federal, so unless the whole country is as bad as Gotham, he could get them in a proper jail.  If they bust out of the SuperMax, they're dead.  

[ShadowFacts]

 

But I can totally blame Snow and Charming for not even being a democratic monarchy. The Sheriff's Station should be renamed the Shady Station what with Emma keeping someone under arrest and starving them for crashing her date.

 

That twisted my undies in a bit of a bundle.  I hate the arrogant use of power.  Throw Regina and Rumple in jail instead of petty burglar Will Scarlett.  They are the real dangers.  Get them on whatever.  Of course, magic is their get out of jail free card.  And Emma wants to get Regina her happy ending.  The Sheriff moniker is a joke, Emma and David have that authority why?  They answer to . . . Snow, the mayor?   Emma has her own magic but she tries using a gun against other magic-wielders (I think that happened, vague memory).  It seems they are not proactive at all, they don't patrol or have organized responses, they just react.  And feed a pop tart to their prisoner.  Who gets out anyway. 

[Rumsy4]

Yup--Emma trained a gun on the Snow Queen. Not her brightest moment. Emma feeding Will the half-eaten pop tart was so bad. She couldn't get him a bologna sandwich? ;-)

[Crimson Belle]

Emma has the authority as Sheriff because she was elected by the vote of the people.

[YaddaYadda]

The whole justice/law in SB is a huge joke though.  The biggest offenders can't really be held in a jail cell because of their magic.  This is where the whole justice system collapses.  So what do we do Rumple?  He is away now, so the threat is actually gone and no one believes he can make it back into town because he technically shouldn't be able to.  But he is coming and bringing with a posse of baddies who are going to wreck havoc on the town...AGAIN.  

 

So the solution at the end of the day really is to kill these people.  Cora was killed, Zelena was killed and so was Pan (Rumple did in two out of three and Cora basically died to save his worthless life and when I put it this way, I actually realize the extent of Rumple's reach), the Snow Queen committed suicide by mirror shards even though she was the one villain who could have lived in the town or gone back to Arendelle and left everyone alone because she ultimately got what she wanted.

 

So now, Rumple comes back to town and only a special kind of cell can hold him prisoner and even with that, he wanted to be imprisoned back in S1 (see fairyback number 1 million) and then Cruella and Ursula (sea Goddess), Maleficent...I'm assuming the body count by the end of 4B will be a high one.

[ShadowFacts]

Thanks, Crimson Belle.  I forgot the whole explosion set up where the populace got behind Emma after her bravery, etc.  Only remembered her taking the reins after Graham's death. 

 

I also forgot Zelena was murdered while in custody.  They need someone on duty 24/7.  Not that Rumpel still couldn't freeze people/memory wipe, etc.  There is no safety or justice in Storybrooke, Emma's powers notwithstanding. 

[Faemonic]

Emma has the authority as Sheriff because she was elected by the vote of the people.

That was more than a year ago in-show, though. I wonder how often do they get to hold re-elections?

Edited January 4, 2015 by Faemonic

[KingOfHearts]

Religion in the show hasn't been a part of the storyline, except that one episode with Astrid. But it was so secularized and used for humor that I wouldn't count it. I agree they should never delve into that area because they'd ruin it like everything else, just with a heap more backlash and probably a lot of families tuning out. I'll argue Lost didn't handle it well either, and that was the better quality show.

I've mentioned this before, but David's story is deeply tied to the Bible's King David.

Edited January 4, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[KAOS Agent]

I'd imagine they would have another election in a few years just like normal towns. And let's be clear, Emma locked up Will for at most two days because he had fled from authorities (twice), he stole from the ice cream shop and admitted breaking into other shops and then he broke into the library and defaced public property. She did not arrest him for crashing her date. Will's assertion that he had served his time was laughable, as was Snow "pardoning" him. Mayors are not monarchs, Snow. You can't do that.

The Poptart thing was stupid, but it was breakfast and it was a clumsy way to link to Young!Emma's thing for Poptarts.

[YaddaYadda]

I've mentioned this before, but David's story is deeply tied to the Bible's King David.

 

I know next to nothing about the Bible to be honest, but I always thought that Emma being called The Savior also had some kind of religious connotation.  This show always had some kind of religious symbolism, I thought.  I mean the CGI over Hook's head when Rumple was getting ready to crush his heart, the first star that showed looked like the star of Bethlehem.  I know it's CGI and maybe there was no intent behind it, but still.

[ShadowFacts]

I'm trying to think of what has happened when non-magical beings commit crimes in town, and dang my rotten memory and unwillingness to look things up, but I only come up with Hook's assaults and shooting and maybe kidnapping?  Orders of magnitude more serious than Will's petty offenses.  Anton tried to kill David and stomped around terrorizing the town, but all's well that ends well.  Bo Peep tried to go after David with a meat cleaver, not arrested.  What passes as law enforcement is pretty darn silly as are so many things in this show.  Some of it just grinds my gears more than others. 

[KingOfHearts]

Storybrooke's lack of legal system spawns moral conundrums more than I'd like. In S1 there were rules the characters had to live by. (Well except Regina, but even she had to fit her schemes into them to appear to be a normal person.) It's much like magic on this show - it's only of consequence if the writers think it's entertaining to them.

[YaddaYadda]

But in Season 1, there was no magic in SB and I think a total of 4 people were in jail.  Leroy, Emma, Mary Margaret and August (I think he did a stint there) and none of them are magical.  

 

Honestly, SB doesn't need a full time sheriff, let alone two plus an assistant with Hook.  Storybrooke needs a full time exorcist with a bullshit detector.

[KAOS Agent]

Both Regina and Rumpel were jailed. And Hook too, though he was jailed in the hospital until David lost him during Anton's attack. And Zelena was as well once she was depowered. What Storybrooke needs is a magic remover so that magical beings can actually pay for their crimes just like non-magical ones.

Edited January 4, 2015 by KAOS Agent

[YaddaYadda]

What Storybrooke needs is a magic remover so that magical beings can actually pay for their crimes just like non-magical ones.

 

You mean like Pan's cuff?

[KingOfHearts]

 

You mean like Pan's cuff?

It disappeared along with Rumple, unfortunately...

 

 

Honestly, SB doesn't need a full time sheriff, let alone two plus an assistant with Hook.  Storybrooke needs a full time exorcist with a bullshit detector.

Well, surely the Enchanted Forest had its own legal system that's not being implemented either. Mayor Snow is a joke, and so are the two sheriffs. It's effectively a lawless town. You know something's funky when two mass murderers are walking around freely amongst people they've tortured or killed family members of.

[Rumsy4]

I know next to nothing about the Bible to be honest, but I always thought that Emma being called The Savior also had some kind of religious connotation.

They did throw in a line in S1 that killing Emma would break the Dark Curse, which is what most often happens to saviors and chosen ones in religion and fiction. That's why Regina opted for a sleeping curse to get rid of her. But now, Emma's role seems to have devolved in bringing back so-called Happy Endings. And apparently since everyone in Storybrooke except Regina has a Happy Ending, Emma is focussed on that. It makes no sense to me. Why is this the savior's role? Why is she even still the savior, when Rumple specifically made her the savior to break the original dark curse? Or is the show implying that because she is the product of true love and has inherant white magic, that makes her the savior? But none of that has been clarified in the show. So, whenever Emma calls herself the savior in later seasons, she comes across as slightly delusional. Especially because she is easily defeated soon after (Zelena, Ingrid, etc.). They seem to have demoted the savior from saving the day to bringing people happy endings.

[Dani-Ellie]

Taking my response to the Continuity thread.

[Camera One]

This is a case where poor world-building results in wonky morality while reflecting poorly on the heroes.  If Will breaking into a library and passing out drunk gets 2 days (or more if he hadn't escaped) in jail, those cells should be full all the time.  Or Enchanted Forest folk are the best behaved citizens in all the realms, which is unlikely given what we've seen in the flashbacks.  

[Rumsy4]

Exactly, Camera One. If petty crimes like theft as to be punished, Little John should be in jail for robbing a convenience store. It's all so arbitrary. Emma was offended because Will kept escaping her. So, she decided to throw him in jail.

[Camera One]

I find it interesting how we were able to buy in the Snow Queen deserving redemption because she recognized that she was wrong and was willing to die for it.  It helped that she didn't actually kill anyone during her "reign".  But if you think about it, her intent was for everyone in Storybrooke to die en masse.  Realistically speaking, it's highly unlikely that no one was seriously hurt or killed during the Shattered Sight Curse/Spell, especially when the heroes' most trusted advisors (Granny and the Dwarves) clearly didn't lock themselves up.  The Snow Queen did also destroy Marion's life (isn't it convenient that Marion's frozen disease was ever-lasting while Hans, Anna, Kristoff, everyone in Arendelle escaped that fate). 

 

If the Snow Queen became a regular, next season, we would see a flashback where she froze a bunch of people and then start smashing them with snow shovels.  So it might be a good thing that they gave her a grand, final exit.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

After some discussion in the villains thread about empathy, I've decided that as satisfying as it might be for Hook to use the dagger to make Rumple cluck like a chicken in the middle of Main Street, and even though Rumple has it coming, Hook shouldn't do it for his own sake. I would hope he has more self-awareness and empathy than to turn around and treat Rumple the way he was treated. He was traumatized by being turned into Rumple's puppet and forced to do things he would never have done otherwise, and turning around and doing that to someone else would put him on Rumple's level (since Rumple did it to him right after having been through Zelena's control over him).

 

But then that got me started thinking about how much loss and removal of agency is such a running motif in this show (I guess this could also fit in the Social Issues thread).

 

On the magical level, there's Rumple's dagger and all the heart ripping, where people are forced under someone else's control. There are the various memory spells, which have been used to turn people into other people who act the way they never would (Regina's curse) or that remove information that people might use to make decisions (Rumple's plans for Belle, the rock trolls, Regina wiping Henry's mind). There's also a fair amount of freezing people so they're incapable of action.

 

There's also a lot of coercion, where people are faced with impossible choices, but they still are choices, so it's not entirely a lack of agency. And then there are the grey areas, where there's a choice, but with information withheld or lied about so it's not a true, honest choice, like Regina tricking Jefferson into Wonderland or a lot of Rumple's deals.

 

And then there are all the people treating other people as though they're their property or the property of others. We've got Rumple, who murdered one wife because she left his control and who was deceiving, freezing and planning to memory-wipe his next wife so she'd have to do what he wanted and who went through his whole scheme to reach his son without considering what his son would want. Then there's Cora, who used magic to keep her husband and daughter in line (and to some extent held that threat over Hook, though he was also going along willingly -- or acting like he was -- because he considered her his best bet for getting to Rumple). And there's Regina, who memory-wiped her son to keep him compliant, who gaslit him, who pretty much held the town hostage to force him to be with her, and who kept Graham as a sex slave and then murdered him for trying to leave her, and who kept Sydney in prison and then imprisoned him in the mirror to force him to serve her. Ingrid wanted to keep Elsa and Emma from being able to have anyone but her. Even non-magically, there's David acting like Snow was his property and being angry at Whale for sleeping with her during the curse and seemingly still having a bit of a grudge against Snow about it (never mind that David must have slept with Kathryn), as well as trying to control Emma's relationship with Hook. And Snow acting as though Neal had some kind of dibs on Emma, so he'd have to "forgive" Emma for kissing Hook (even though Neal was engaged to someone else until right before he went missing).

 

Now they're introducing this Author plot that makes it sound like they don't have free will because some Author is dictating their outcomes.

 

The writers should probably seek professional help because it seems like they have some issues.

[KingOfHearts]

 

There's also a lot of coercion, where people are faced with impossible choices, but they still are choices, so it's not entirely a lack of agency. And then there are the grey areas, where there's a choice, but with information withheld or lied about so it's not a true, honest choice, like Regina tricking Jefferson into Wonderland or a lot of Rumple's deals.

 

Now they're introducing this Author plot that makes it sound like they don't have free will because some Author is dictating their outcomes.

 

This is the fruit of letting plot control the characters. They needed Emma to get burned by Neal, so they setup what they call an impossible situation with August to force him to leave her in prison. They wanted Snow to kill Cora and get a black spot on her heart, so they made Regina stupidly believe Snow to get it to work. With this Author stuff, it's more of the same thing. The circumstances just so happen to click into place at the last moment to get something to execute a certain way, and that's what the book is supposedly doing. They don't allow the characters to make decisions themselves, and when they do it's usually sugarcoated ("Neal is a hero!") or claimed to be without any actual free will when it actually was. ("I had no choice")

Edited January 7, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[Faemonic]

I've decided that as satisfying as it might be for Hook to use the dagger to make Rumple cluck like a chicken in the middle of Main Street, and even though Rumple has it coming, Hook shouldn't do it for his own sake. I would hope he has more self-awareness and empathy than to turn around and treat Rumple the way he was treated.

Ah, well, if Hook regresses into the same drunken peasant-kicking bully...it would probably be because the plot needed that to happen, but I can sort of understand how difficult it is to empathize with somebody threatening your loved ones. My headcanon Hook would just kill him without having any fun with it, especially if Emma were comatose or something.

 

The feeling of agency and ownership of one's own life and of their quality of life, mutually respected boundaries between people and all, that's a good thing for everyone to strive for, even if it is just a feeling. Even if every movement of every atom that makes up every cell in our brain is already predetermined, it shouldn't be a justification for victim-shaming victims for not forgiving harmful people fast enough. The level of mechanical cause-and-effect can be a different one than societal justice, but it either applies to all people or it doesn't. To paraphrase Sam Harris after a long thesis about "self" and "free will" not being philosophically defensible concepts...it still makes sense to take actions against harmful people, even if accepting this philosophy means that we couldn't imbue those actions with blame.

 

By the same rule, the same villains couldn't be as pampered and coddled as A&E would have them.

[Shanna Marie]

They don't allow the characters to make decisions themselves, and when they do it's usually sugarcoated ("Neal is a hero!") or claimed to be without any actual free will when it actually was. ("I had no choice")

It's funny, but Neal's "I had no choice" was one of the few times when someone really did have a choice, with lots of options.

 

"No choice" would be when someone is controlling a person and using them as a puppet. Rumple had no choice about forcing Robin to give him Regina's heart by threatening Roland or about drowning Hook (even if he might have enjoyed that one). Hook had no choice about hatting the fairies. Graham had no choice about sleeping with Regina or arresting Owen's father. Everyone else has had a choice, even if it hasn't been a great choice with a lot of options.

 

Nearly no choice or a rock and a hard place type situations might be like David and Snow sending Emma away. They believed at that time that this was the only way to save Emma from the curse and to allow everyone else to eventually be saved from the curse. They didn't know the exact form the curse would take at that time. Maybe they'd have made a different decision if they'd known they'd just be sent to live boring lives in a small town. But they made the choice they felt they had to make with the information they had available at that time.

 

A lot of the cases that the show treats like tough decisions really aren't. They're only difficult if you look at it in terms of abstract nobility instead of practicality. So there's Robin faced with giving up Regina's heart or letting his small child die. If you're pretending to be noble, you'd say that the "right" thing is not to give in to the villain. But if you really think about it, should he let his child die for the sake of a woman he's only just met who he knows isn't that far removed from being a villain herself? It's kind of a "duh." Or there was Hook ending up working with Cora and helping her fake her death. She threatened his life. The person with ideals of nobility would say he should die rather than give in, but what loyalty did he owe Regina? He was only in Wonderland looking for Cora because Regina threatened him. Killing Cora should fall into this category, since she was a threat, saving her saved the whole town, she was nearly impossible to kill because of her power, and the candle offered the opportunity to save Rumple while they were at it, plus there's the lovely irony that it was Cora who gave Snow the candle in the first place. If anyone had it coming, it was Cora. But Snow seems to have felt that she should have let Cora become the Dark One and take over the town rather than killing her in a sneaky way.

 

Neal had plenty of choices. I still don't understand why Emma had to go to jail to be the savior. He could have gone to jail so she'd be scared straight and separated from him. They could have just gone to Tallahassee together and gone straight, and then he could have taken her on a vacation to Maine when the time came. There was nothing about sending her to jail that was necessary to putting her on the right path. He was mostly getting away from her and making sure she couldn't follow him because he knew she'd lead him back to his father. He more or less admitted that in "Manhattan." But somewhere along the way they turned that into "I had no choice."

[Faemonic]

Snow seems to have felt that she should have let Cora become the Dark One and take over the town rather than killing her in a sneaky way.

Because that didn't happen, though, I can believe that Snow could be tortured by the notion that it could have been handled better rather than worse because what actually happened just simply wasn't good enough for the Side of Good .

 

But then again, the pit full of murdered villagers actually did happen and that gets cast for some reason into a pile of "nnnot evil enough" rather than "not good at all."

Edited January 10, 2015 by Faemonic

[KingOfHearts]

 

Because that didn't happen, though, I can believe that Snow could be tortured by the notion that it could have been handled better rather than worse because what actually happened just simple wasn't good enough for the Side of Good ™.

What was with her in line in the diner speech saying, "I did it because it was easy. They were other, harder paths"? I wonder what paths she was talking about. Did they involve more people dying?

Edited January 10, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[Curio]

But then again, the pit full of murdered villagers actually did happen and that gets cast for some reason into a pile of "nnnot evil enough" rather than "not good at all."

I'll still never understand why the writers allowed Regina's character to do that. The moment it happened on screen, I mentally said to myself, "Okay. Aaaand she's officially on the irredeemable list." That just crossed a line I'm not sure the writers can ever fix. How can the show justify giving Regina a happy ending with Robin, Henry, and probably BFF-status with Emma and the Charmings after that? Oh, but that was the Evil Queen! Not Regina... I don't buy that. Cora massacred an entire village too and her character (justifiably) died at the end of her arc. And Cora's massacre was supposedly bad enough to leave Hook tied to a tree to die a horrible death by ogres just because he appeared to be (at worse) an accomplice to it or (at best) too afraid to stand up to Cora and went along with pretending to be dead to save his own skin, but the writers expect the audience to forget Regina's mass-village-massacre happened and we should be fully on board Operation Mongoose? And we should all want to give Regina every happy ending she wants? Which is so fickle that it changes every 4 episodes anyways? I'm okay with the writers attempting to give Regina a series-long redemption arc, but I'm not sure I'll ever be comfortable with her (or Rumple) getting a white-picket-fence-happily-ever-after at the end of the series.

[Mari]

I'm okay with the writers attempting to give Regina a series-long redemption arc, but I'm not sure I'll ever be comfortable with her (or Rumple) getting a white-picket-fence-happily-ever-after at the end of the series.

Especially since their happily-ever-after always seems to come at someone else's expense, and no actual remorse or change.

[Shanna Marie]

I'm okay with the writers attempting to give Regina a series-long redemption arc, but I'm not sure I'll ever be comfortable with her (or Rumple) getting a white-picket-fence-happily-ever-after at the end of the series.

You know, I think a lot of the problem here is that the writers don't seem to understand that change, redemption, and justice are all different things. They sometimes go together, but you need all three to work in order to give a former villain a happily-ever-after and make it satisfying.

 

Change is more external. It's the behavior you see, and someone can totally change their behavior without being redeemed. That depends on the motivation. From what she's said, the reason Regina has stopped doing evil things has not been because she's realized it was evil and wrong, but because it didn't get her what she wanted. Rumple's behavior only appeared to change. He was putting on a good face while doing evil in secret.

 

Redemption is more of an inward change, realizing that what you've done was wrong and changing your attitude, which leads to a change in behavior. Hook is a good example of this because he's said multiple times that he's learned that revenge is wrong and pointless (I really hope they don't screw this up in the next arc). Revenge didn't change anything, didn't bring him any peace, and his actions while he was seeking revenge kept him from having good things. He learned that his own behavior was what kept him from being happy. This is where they've failed with Regina because there's been no sense that she's accepted any personal responsibility for anything but gaslighting Henry. She hasn't admitted that she was wrong to go on a revenge quest against Snow, that her motives were wrong in everything she did as the evil queen. She's let Snow apologize multiple times for her role in Daniel's death and for killing Cora without saying one word about her own crimes against Snow. The best she's done is mention Cora's crimes against Snow. Regina may have stopped her evil behavior, but without that inward change and without some remorse for what she's done, I can't call her redeemed. Rumple may have acknowledged that he was doing bad things, but that didn't change his behavior, so he's also not redeemed.

 

And then there's justice. Changing and even being redeemed don't get you out of the consequences of your actions. Finding Jesus/Allah/Buddha/whatever in jail doesn't get you out of a life sentence for murder. Changed behavior and changed attitudes might lead to an earlier release if the original sentence allows it, but there's no guarantee. The slate might be wiped clean in heaven, but on earth you still have to live with and deal with the things you've done. Whether it's an actual criminal sentence and jail time in an official justice system or karma coming out to play, there needs to be some sense that justice has been done. That's why fairy tales offer hope -- good people are rewarded and bad people are punished. Formerly bad people who are redeemed may come out okay on the other side, but it's still a lot more satisfying if they have at least some price to pay before they start getting rewards. That's another area where Regina's arc has been so unsatisfying. She hasn't really paid for anything. Her former victims all want to be friends with her, she only lost her position as mayor when she gave it up because she was too busy moping, she still has her mansion, she supposedly had to give up Henry forever but got him back. The only thing she's really lost (that she didn't destroy herself, like her father) was Robin, and she considers that to be something so wrong with the universe that she needs to rewrite the happy ending. At least Rumple paid some kind of karmic price in that he lost the son he did all that scheming to reach. Hook has lost everyone in his life, his hand, and had to give up his ship (as much as part of me would like him to get the Jolly Roger back or at least get it away from Blackbeard, there's also a part of me that feels it's right that he had to lose it).

[KingOfHearts]

I totally agree with Shanna Marie. I believe the writers get those things mixed up. They don't just want Regina to be redeemed, but they want everyone to love her immediately without any consequences. On other shows I watch, even if a character is redeemed, they still get looks of disdain and expectation of betrayal from the other characters. Take Xena the Warrior Princess or Juliet from Lost for example. They don't get "Get Out of Jail Free" cards for wanting to change their ways. They have to work for it, and frankly Regina hasn't done squat since 2A. 

 

I don't see any desire from Regina to really change, either. She wants what's shiny that day, like a child or a boyfriend. "Emma has a Hook, now I need one!" "Hansel, Gretel and Owen were all great kids, now I have to have one!" The only reason she's on the side of the angels is because right now she feels she's more likely to get what she wants through herohood.

 

This is just my opinion, but I think showing the atrocities she accomplished in the past just reinforces how shallow her redemption has been in the present when you compare the two. Realistically, yes she's about as redeemable as Hitler. But if we're going to handwave that, then in return we need some real change here. Keeping beating hearts in a vault, scheming murder from time to time, keeping genies locked up as slaves, verbally abusing the woman who routinely saves your butt, enjoying adulterous affairs and planning to coerce a sorcerer to redo your life are not signs of a new person. The Evil Queen is just sitting inside, waiting for the next person to blame.

Edited January 13, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[Shanna Marie]

Inspired by something mentioned on the villains thread, I've been thinking about some of the moral platitudes that this show likes to throw around and how harmful some of them actually are if you really think about them.

 

There's the "they're family!" bit. While in general standing up for and caring about your family members is a good idea, when taken to extremes it can lead to injustice. Letting someone off the hook for horrendous crimes because they share DNA or a household with you is the kind of thing an evil dictator does, not something a benevolent ruler does. It's one thing to go to the ends of the earth to save someone because one of your family values is sticking together, but what if your family member really is guilty of a crime or is a risk to others? This has led to some really weird stuff where mass murderers get to go free because they're related to the Charming clan but Will gets thrown in jail for drunkenly breaking into the library. It also makes it look like the lives of the common people don't matter, since they're not related to the rulers. Who cares if they're being oppressed as long as no family member suffers in any way? It gets tricky when both victim and villain are family -- they have to save Rumple because he's family, but Milah was just as related to Henry and Rumple killed her.

 

Then there's "heroes don't kill people," which should have had some correction from the adults in Henry's life but which seems to have been part of the mid-season two retcon. Never mind that Snow and David fought a war to defeat George and Regina. Now apparently they must have used suction cup arrows and Nerf swords or else had a massive chess tournament because no one seems to think that there might be a time when killing someone might be the only way to save lives. Though I guess if the person causing the threat is family and the lives being saved are nobodies, it all works out. Instead, we have to get some shadier person (generally Rumple, since he took out both Pan and Zelena) to do the dirty work so the heroes can keep their hands clean, and I'm not comfortable with that moral message.

 

And my personal favorite "you never give up on the people you love." It sounds lovely, but if you take it as an absolute it becomes a justification for stalking or an imperative to stay in an abusive relationship. I can see where you wouldn't ever close the door on people you love, so you'd give them a chance once they got past the point of being harmful to you or others, and you might still love them even as you can't condone their actions, but that doesn't mean you have to keep killing yourself to appease someone you've had any kind of relationship with. This was the worst in the relationship between Emma and Regina. For one thing, when have they ever loved each other? They've been forced to work together, but it's not like there was an existing relationship not to give up on. If we're applying this standard to all relationships, then does that mean you have to try to force everyone you've ever met to be friends with you and never let them tell you to buzz off? But according to this show, it's right for Emma to keep on pushing because she's not allowed to give up on someone who has said she doesn't want her to be her friend and who is being abusive to her.

[Delphi]

I don't have anything to add, but I want to marry that post. Liking it wasn't enough, I legit want to put a ring on it.

Edited January 22, 2015 by Delphi

[Faemonic]

Inspired by something mentioned on the villains thread, I've been thinking about some of the moral platitudes that this show likes to throw around and how harmful some of them actually are if you really think about them.

 

Who cares if they're being oppressed as long as no family member suffers in any way? It gets tricky when both victim and villain are family -- they have to save Rumple because he's family, but Milah was just as related to Henry and Rumple killed her.

That is strange. Like, they bring in Hansel and Gretel to show how the families of the peasants were also torn apart, and then kind of completely forgot about considering the peasants. Seriously, nobody got to vote on Snow's dark curse mass immigration. Methinks the Charmings need to abdicate.

 

As for Milah...phew, oh boy. If I try to untangle that, I guess that the declaration "we're family" is more binding than blood relations. Regina isn't related by blood to anybody but Cora and Henry Sr. and Zelena, and they all died in horrible ways. So, when Milah ran off with Captain Jones, she demonstrated no longer being part of the Family that she committed to which, in a work that is chock full of abandonment issues, is apparently worse than murder and worthy of execution and then gloating about it 328+ years after.

 

And my personal favorite "you never give up on the people you love." It sounds lovely, but if you take it as an absolute it becomes a justification for stalking or an imperative to stay in an abusive relationship.

 

...according to this show, it's right for Emma to keep on pushing because she's not allowed to give up on someone who has said she doesn't want her to be her friend and who is being abusive to her.

 

Collective abandonment issues present in the work again. Not to excuse it, of course, but in trying to explain...If Once Upon A Time were a person, it would definitely have a deep-seated need for unconditional love and would be constantly testing people with conditions to test the unconditionality. That message would be the need for this hypothetical personification. What doesn't come in through this filter or force-field of need is that life and the world is waaay more complicated than that. But the personality of the show seems to be the type that would take accusations of stalking, or even observations of over-entitlement to attention, to heart as "you don't deserve attention and love" and I can't even with that sort of personal issue.

 

Then there's "heroes don't kill people," which should have had some correction from the adults in Henry's life but which seems to have been part of the mid-season two retcon. Never mind that Snow and David fought a war to defeat George and Regina. Now apparently they must have used suction cup arrows and Nerf swords or else had a massive chess tournament because no one seems to think that there might be a time when killing someone might be the only way to save lives. Though I guess if the person causing the threat is family and the lives being saved are nobodies, it all works out. Instead, we have to get some shadier person (generally Rumple, since he took out both Pan and Zelena) to do the dirty work so the heroes can keep their hands clean, and I'm not comfortable with that moral message.

Indeed, that makes no practical sense.

 

As with the "you don't give up on family or people you love" too though...I think it might even be a case of not all the writers communicating with each other, or maybe the show bible not having this as part of the thing? Maybe some writers thought it would be cool if Snowing and the War Council went to actual war and killed people, whereas other writers thought to play up the fairy tale aspect where the designated good guys don't kill anybody or it's a Big Deal when Snow does (not because of how she did it, but that she did it at all) and...I don't think the writers share notes, or maybe the continuity editor does nothing or is always given the thing to continuity edit far too late to actually get to change anything.