Morality in Storybrooke / Social Issues: Threads Combined!

[kili]

His problem is that he legitimately loves two women.  He wants to be with Regina, but doesn't know what to do about Marian.  He wants to do the right thing, which he believes is staying with Marian.  My question is this- is that the right thing?

 

Even in today's more flexible relationship environment, it is still considered cheating if you get with one person when you are in a committed relationship with another. You are expected to tell the person you are in a committed relationship with that it is over before you do the deed with the new person. I can understand falling into and out of love and so can Marianne. She's very mature about it and doesn't want to hold  her husband  in a relationship where the love is gone and he has a new love interest. Surely, one can have enough self-control to wait to have crypt woo-hoo until one has let one's wife know that the relationship is dead and one is moving on.

 

Now, Mariane was in a coma so that makes it a little hard to tell her anything and nobody knew when she was going to awaken. If it had been 6 months like that, I can more understand Robin's actions. But he waited like two days. The guy is feckless and a cheater.

[Shanna Marie]

The earlier episodes are gone from OnDemand, so I can't go back and check, and it's likely I was singing at the top of my lungs during most of those scenes, but as I recall, Robin was pretty firm about it before Marian was cursed. He did tell Regina that it was a difficult decision, but he didn't start the waffling until later. Before the curse, he broke up with Regina and told her he had a code of honor that required him to honor his marriage vows. He was living with Marian and acting like they were a family. He acted loving toward Marian and gave every impression that they were back together for good. I think at that point, anything he did with anyone else without making a clean break from Marian would be considered adultery, and it's made worse by the fact that Marian was under a curse, and they believed that the only way to save her was with a true love's kiss, so by not focusing on Marian and by cheating with Regina, he was potentially killing his wife.

 

I'd feel the same way if we removed the magic and the fact that Regina was responsible for Marian's disappearance and presumed death. If, say, a wife was believed lost at sea and returned home a few days after her husband had fallen in love with someone else. If he broke up with that other person and went home with his wife, saying that he was going to honor his marriage vows, and then his wife had a seizure, stroke, or some other incident that put her in a coma, I think it would be adultery for him to go back to the other person while his wife was in a coma. It wouldn't be a problem if he'd told his wife that he'd moved on when she returned (though it would be questionable if it had just been a few days). But if the last thing his wife knew was that he was going to stick with her, then I'm afraid he's in a 'til death do you part situation and is only free to move on when the wife is either conscious enough to be told that it's over or dead/beyond all hope of recovery.

[KAOS Agent]

He's married and slept with another woman. That's by definition adultery - "Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse." All of the other things may make it more or less acceptable, but it's still adultery. Robin's confusion and uncertainty are definitely understandable, but he also made a choice by saying he'd made vows and planned to honor them. Three days later, he's banging his girlfriend of a couple weeks. That's just gross. It comes across as well, the wife's out of commission again better move on to the next option. Both women deserve better than that treatment. If Marian had been frozen for months and it looked like nothing was ever going to happen to improve her condition, I'd be more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but the guy couldn't even keep it in his pants for more than a couple of days. Even worse, he wanted to take Regina back to his camp for breakfast where presumably his young son was living. How messed up is it for this little boy to see his mom and dad together and then mom is "sleeping", so now daddy is with mommy's replacement.

Edited February 23, 2015 by KAOS Agent

[Dani-Ellie]

From 4x01:

 

Robin: My feelings for you were ... are real. But Marian is my wife. I loved her and I made a vow until death do us part. And it did, and then it didn't, but my vow remains.

Regina: So you made your choice.

Robin: I may be a thief but I have a code and I have to live by that code, otherwise what kind of life am I living? I hope you can look into your heart and understand.

 

Right there, he tells Regina, "I love you but I am staying with her." It may have been out of duty but he made a choice to stay with Marian. As far as Marian was concerned, she and her husband and son were a family. Then, as she's lying frozen, dying, he's off sleeping with another woman.

 

I completely understand if Robin has moved on, if he's changed and grown and he's no longer the person he was when he was with Marian and if he's no longer in love with her because he thought she was dead and he's mourned her and grieved. But he made a choice to stay with his wife, whom he then betrayed by sleeping with another woman. And frankly, it wasn't fair to Regina, either, that he kept running to her while still planning on staying with his wife ... as long as she didn't die from Frozen Heart Syndrome in the meantime. He was stringing both of them along.

 

This is why I'm saying he should have owned it. If he'd had the "I love you, Marian, and I always will but I'm in love with another woman" conversation with her, it would be less squicky to me. If he hadn't told Regina, "I'm going back to my wife" and then continued to run to her for crypt sex, it would be less squicky to me. Because the honorable thing would have been to be honest in the first place. If he wanted to honor his vows, he should have done so. If he wanted to stay with Regina, he should have done so. But going behind Marian's back while she was, for all intents and purposes, on her deathbed was a gross betrayal of those vows he wanted to honor.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Dani-Ellie

[FabulousTater]

Three days later, he's banging his girlfriend of a couple weeks. That's just gross. It comes across as well, the wife's out of commission again better move on to the next option. Both women deserve better than that treatment.

Meh. Marian deserved better, totally. But not Regina. She murdered her own father, setup Snow's father's murder, slaughtered a village of people, sent children to their deaths, murdered Graham, enslaved an entire civilization for 28 years, etc. Ya, a shitty boyfriend is the least of what Regina deserves. Really, Regina deserves a hangman's noose or a decades+ long stay in a dungeon, but since the show won't go there, she can have Mr. Reprehensible Morally Squicky Choices, Robin Hood. Regina can stick that suckitude up her unrepentant arse and smoke it. It works just fine by me.

Edited February 23, 2015 by FabulousTater

[Shanna Marie]

This discussion reminded me of something I missed in the list of reasons that the Find the Author/Get Regina a Happy Ending plot is possibly the most morally skewed thing this show has done:

 

The situation that Regina is complaining about that she sees as proof that the Author is conspiring against her and won't give her a happy ending because she was a villain, is a direct consequence of choices she made. It's not like it's random events are happening to her to thwart her happiness. Her love wasn't killed by some other villain (something she's done to others). They weren't torn apart by a curse (something she's done to others). His memory wasn't altered to make him not love her (something she's done to others). She was presented Robin on a silver platter with a guarantee that he was her soulmate, but she wanted to get revenge against Snow and rejected him. She was the reason Robin was available again, since she imprisoned Marian and would have executed her (would she feel so bad if Robin had never been a possibility because he was with his wife the whole time?). She was the reason Emma rescued Marian, since she imprisoned Emma and planned both Emma's and Marian's executions, so Emma felt obligated to rescue Marian. If Regina had made the right choice at any point along the way, she wouldn't be going through all this. So how is this the Author's fault? How does she feel entitled for things to work out differently? Why is everyone else agreeing with her that this needs to be corrected?

[yeswedo]

Folks, Regina / Robin / Marian has been discussed in great detail over multiple threads for months. Please only post about it if you're adding something new. Thanks.

[Shanna Marie]

The morality in this show has always been a bit murky, but I'm trying to parse the latest twist.

 

The original catchphrase was "evil isn't born, it's made." That seemed to generally mean that someone wasn't necessarily born bad, but things happened to them (usually done by those dastardly heroes) that turned them evil. So Regina only became bad because that terrible Snow blabbed about Daniel to Cora. Cora only became bad because that nasty Eva ratted her out to Leopold so she didn't get to marry a prince. Zelena only became bad (excuse me, wicked) because of the double whammy of Eva not letting Cora marry Leopold so that Zelena would have been a princess and Rumple not wanting her to do the curse. Hook only became bad because he was betrayed by his king and then later because Rumple killed his lover and cut his hand off. Rumple became bad because he heard a prophecy, his wife left him, and his boy was nearly drafted into the army. Ingrid only became bad because she accidentally killed her sister and her other sister trapped her in an urn.

 

And maybe that's true, to some extent. However, the show also gave us counterexamples that demonstrated that maybe it wasn't just about the bad things that happened, but rather the bad choices made in response to those things, since all the heroes had bad things happen to them without them turning evil. Snow's parents were murdered and she was cast out of her own castle and nearly murdered repeatedly. David's father was a drunk who died when he was young, then he was forced to impersonate his evil twin, imprisoned and nearly executed, and his mother was killed. Emma was seemingly abandoned at birth, grew up bouncing around the foster care system, then was left pregnant in jail when her lover left her to take the fall for his crime. Hook has even admitted that he went to a dark place when his brother was killed and that this was the wrong course to take. So while the show for the most part was telling us that evil was made, the message they were showing us was that what makes evil isn't the bad things that happen to a person, but rather the way a person responds to the bad things that happen to everyone.

 

Now, though, they seem to have switched gears entirely with this heroes/villains/Author plot. They seem to be telling us that you get labeled a villain or a hero, and that then apparently makes you act in a villainous or heroic way, and then from that point you're stuck with the label, no matter how you change or what you do. A villain can never get a happy ending, period. Regina can't be happy because she's a villain, and it has nothing to do with her own actions. I guess maybe this means that possibly Hook was born to be a hero, but got off track, and now that he's back on track he gets a happy ending while Regina doesn't?

 

But at the same time, with the whole Tree of Wisdom thing and Snow getting rejected because her embryo had the potential to be either a great hero or very dark, they also seem to be saying that you have the potential for either heroism or villainy. So is it that once you choose a path, you're stuck on it? But if it's common knowledge that villains can't win and can't get a happy ending, then why would anyone choose to be a villain?

 

Of course, all this has to totally disregard the fact that the only difference we've seen in hero outcomes and villain outcomes is that the heroes are capable of being content with what they have and enjoying the moment while the villains always want more and are always dissatisfied. It's that wanting more that always seems to lead to the villains' downfall, not some cosmic happiness glass ceiling.

[Camera One]

Well put.  I'm sure A&E will respond that they're "exploring" ALL these different possibilities in what makes a hero a hero and what makes a villain a villain, and they're really glad you are enjoying the complexity.

 

Basically, the whole Snow/Charming "big mistake" and Emma's potential for darkness are to reinforce how unfair the Author is.  Snow and Charming shouldn't get an automatic hero badge despite all the horrible things they have done.  It highlights the injustice of Regina trying her hardest to be good yet being deprived of a happy ending since she was branded a villain.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Camera One

[kili]

But if it's common knowledge that villains can't win and can't get a happy ending, then why would anyone choose to be a villain?

 

I don't actually find that weird. One of the many traits of villains is to think they are superior to others (that is what allows them to justify the harm they do - the little people are insignificant and deserve what happens to them). I can quite imagine that they can see the failures of others to achieve their happy endings as the fact that those losers weren't smart/ruthless/whatever enough. Fortunately for them, they are the smartest person in the room and they will succeed.  Look how Regina, Cruella and Ursula snark on each others abilities.

 

Where I live, the drug dealers are forever killing each other. If one hears of a homocide, one can pretty much be sure that it just one drug dealer taking out another. Even the powerful kingpins go down in a hail of bullets. So, why do people continue to take up this line of work? It pays well and they believe the are smarter than everybody else in the room. People also still like to be tin-pot dictators no matter how many of them meet a sticky end and get dragged around the town by their former victims.

 

If the Author and his habit of always punishing villains was well-known, this might make a difference. But the Author seemed to be news to most of the denizens of Storybrooke, so I'm guessing his rules are not well-known.  So, as long as people think that they have a chance at success, some of them will villain away. 

 

Plus, most of these villains seem to think they are the victims so I suppose they feel justified in what they do. If only people would stop vicitimizing them and calling them villains.

 

Besides, Regina has a lot of money, a child that loves her and a guy that pines for her. Looks like winning to a lot of people. Rumple owns the entire town, re-united with his child and was married to the love of his life. For a while, he looked like a winner too. That's very motivational to wannabee villains.

[Camera One]

But the Author seemed to be news to most of the denizens of Storybrooke, so I'm guessing his rules are not well-known.

Yeah, even Rumple didn't get the idea until Regina mentioned it.  And she just came up with it out of the blue in the 4A premiere.  And yet Rumple in the 4B premiere was authoritatively telling Ursula and Cruella that the villains' unhappiness is because the Author "wills" it.  

 

Though Rumple seems to think the Author and the Sorcerer are the same person, while Blue says otherwise.  

Edited March 11, 2015 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

I don't actually find that weird. One of the many traits of villains is to think they are superior to others (that is what allows them to justify the harm they do - the little people are insignificant and deserve what happens to them). I can quite imagine that they can see the failures of others to achieve their happy endings as the fact that those losers weren't smart/ruthless/whatever enough.

In the real world, in most fiction, and even in this show up to the last season (aside from one of Regina's rants before casting the curse) I agree with this. But this season they've shown the villains whining about how they can't win because they're villains, which seems to indicate that they're aware that there's some kind of cosmic narrative bias against them, that their schemes will never prevail because they're villain schemes, and that's the way the world works.

 

That's part of what's so bizarre about this plot. It makes no sense. I can buy the villains not seeing themselves as villains because they're victims, they deserve what they're going after, etc. I can even see them whining about the world not being fair and blaming their outcome on something else. But now they're in the odd position of having villains be self-aware of being villains, calling themselves villains, and claiming that being villains is what keeps them from winning -- and the show doesn't seem to be saying that they're wrong, since it's showing Regina in the same situation as a victim of this book who is incapable of finding happiness unless some Author changes her story. So if it's general knowledge that villains never win and are not allowed to have a happy ending, who would choose to be a villain?

 

I'm sure there's at least one drug dealer who makes tons of money and never gets caught or killed, and that's enough to make the wannabes go for it. But if every single one died and went to prison and no one was ever successful, would people still do it?

 

Of course, we have to forget that Regina did succeed in casting the curse so the book ended with her getting what she hoped would be a happy ending. And forget that Cora became Queen of Hearts in Wonderland and returned to the Enchanted Forest on her own terms (though she did die, but she had quite a long run in a triumphant situation). And forget that aside from having lost his son, Rumple seemed to have had a pretty good life full of wealth and power. In the Enchanted Forest, all the villains seemed to be living better lives than the heroes. It's just that the heroes were content as long as they were alive and with their loved ones while the villains remained unhappy because they didn't have it all.

[kili]

That's part of what's so bizarre about this plot. It makes no sense

 

I can't argue with that. This plot line is baffling. Nonseniscal, ret-conning that makes every character action pointless. 

 

There is no point to this thread if the Author controls everybody's choices and destinies. There is no morality because the characters are all just his puppets. He is like a kid playing with his action figures.  Well, maybe he is immoral, but morality factors into none of the other character's actions.

 

I just don't understand how they could possibly argue that villains don't get happy endings when the victims they killed didn't get them either. Unless the Mute Maid was secretly Jack the Ripper I'm not understanding how anybody can remotely argue this. The villains did bad things (turned dads into pigs, slaughtered villages, burnt up knights) and then people wanted to stop them. That is natural consequences and logical behavior.

 

Oh, Snow White doesn't want to work with you? Well, that's not the Author being mean to you. It's a consequence of you killing innocent men when you had a dozen options open to you. Why would she want to work with you, you dumb a$$? Why woulldn't t a reasonable person think that you might kill them too? Why would they trust you? Why should they trust you? Why would they not see you perishing in a curse as a good thing? 

 

I just wish we could have one character on-screen call this out for the blatant nonsense that it is.

[Camera One]

The whole "pure of heart" and "true hero" thing is so ill-defined.  Look at the characters traditionally labelled as "heroes" on this show.  Aurora and Philip for instance.  A&E had them lie to Snow and Charming to protect their own unborn baby.  Does that tarnish their "pure of heart" status, because they made a choice which could presumably have hurt others?  Are they actually heroes anymore?   Who knows because they haven't had a cumulative 3 minutes of screentime since their "betrayal".

 

Elsa's parents could not use the Wishing Star because they were pure of heart.  Because they lied to the kingdom about the truth about Gerda's sister?  Is that the reason they weren't pure of heart?  But Elsa was pure of heart.  Even though she took the Wishing Star to find Anna and thereby condemning the entire town to the Shattered Sight Curse.  

[Mathius]

But Elsa was pure of heart.  Even though she took the Wishing Star to find Anna and thereby condemning the entire town to the Shattered Sight Curse.

Um, no. Anna was explicitly stated to have the potential to save the town, which means Elsa wasn't just abandoning the town to its fate. As it turns out, Anna was the one to save the town, though not in the way that was expected, and she would've died if not for Elsa. Using the Wishing Star for what the Charmings and Regina had in mind would have ended in failure due to Rumple.

[YaddaYadda]

But Elsa was pure of heart.  Even though she took the Wishing Star to find Anna and thereby condemning the entire town to the Shattered Sight Curse.

 

She did do that, true, but when she hit a dead end, she regretted what she did, kicked herself for being an idiot and condemning the whole town to doom and then made her wish.  So whatever she did out of stubborn belief to find her sister, she regretted her actions, much like she refused David's thanks for saving Emma because she was the one who endangered her in the first place.  Elsa was one of the most self-aware characters we've had on the show.

[Camera One]

Um, no. Anna was explicitly stated to have the potential to save the town, which means Elsa wasn't just abandoning the town to its fate.

 

The operative word is potential.  Elsa had no way of knowing she would find Anna in time in the Caves.  So she gambled the life of the entire town, to look for a single person.  Yes, she won, but she herself understood that what she did was selfish.

 

She is still a hero because she is so self-aware, whereas a villain would never blame themselves.  But the question is at what point is a person considered not pure of heart?  Is it when they do something wrong but they realize it was wrong, regrets it and punishes themselves for it?  If so, why are Elsa's parents not pure of heart?  Or is it only if they would never be tempted to make a choice which is selfish knowing it could potentially hurt others?

 

Likewise, Belle went for the rock instead of helping Anna, and she did regret it immediately.  Is that what makes her a hero?  

Edited March 12, 2015 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

Did Elsa's parents know they already had the Wishing Star? It sounds like they were looking for it, but they were lost on that voyage, so how did Elsa have it? Was it one of those ironic cases where they went out seeking something, and got themselves killed doing so, not knowing they had it all along? If they'd known, they could have had Anna use it to save Elsa. Or maybe since their idea of a cure at that time was probably Elsa losing her magic, it wouldn't have worked because that very request wouldn't have been pure of heart.

 

I do think that the self-awareness and remorse counts. Snow was able to contain and probably even shrink the dark spot on her heart because she admitted that the way she killed Cora wasn't the right thing to do (debatable, but still ...). Hook's heart seems to be losing some darkness because he's remorseful. He's capable of noticing situations similar to those he's been in and empathizing. He could counsel Emma about not going dark when she saw Snow executed because he recognized the situation and knew what she was going through. It seemed to really bother him that Rumple was throwing away his chance for love and couldn't see the risk he was taking. That's where Regina's lack of self-awareness bothers me so much. She's considered to be redeemed and deserving of a happy ending, but it doesn't seem to have occurred to her as she spends hours staring at the book full of her evil deeds that one way to perhaps earn a happy ending is to attempt to atone for those deeds, or at least apologize. Couldn't that be something that's holding her back, that she can't find happiness for herself until she tries to set things right? I mean, Earl on My Name is Earl was an idiot, but even he recognized that in order to get karma back on his side and turn his luck around, he had to make up for the wrongs he'd done in the past, and his wrongs were relatively petty. She's not even able to empathize with others or see the parallels between what she's going through and what she put others through.

[KingOfHearts]

So with this "what makes a hero, and what makes a villain", I still don't understand what exactly they're trying to say. They'll spout out terms like "hero" and "villain" as if its a black and white universe, then turn around say its a grey, blurred area. Heroes can be "bad", villains can be "good". In Enter the Dragon, it really couldn't make up its mind. Rumple is evil in the present for tricking Belle, but Maleficent killing guards and cursing Aurora was a victory? Drinking and dodging trains proves Hitler is still a dictator? Regina made Maleficent her evil, murderous self again... yay?

 

So confusing.

Edited March 16, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[Shanna Marie]

Maleficent killing guards and cursing Aurora was a victory?

It would really have been nice if we'd had the slightest inkling of why Mal wanted revenge there. Was she actually wronged, or was it like Regina's beef with Snow, which was pretty baseless and petty? And even if she actually had been wronged, I can't get behind hurting an innocent who had nothing to do with it because she apparently wasn't born at the time just to make someone else suffer. Ditto with the horse and Regina.

 

And speaking of Regina's beef with Snow, something occurred to me about that: Regina keeps going on and on about Snow being unable to keep a secret, but does it really count as a secret? It wasn't a confidence Regina shared with a close friend. Snow caught Regina making out with Daniel, which was cheating on her fiance, Snow's father. Regina talked Snow into keeping it a secret as an attempt at damage control. But then there's also a huge problem with an adult asking a child to keep a secret.

 

I do volunteer work with kids that requires training on various policies meant to protect the kids and protect the adult volunteers by making sure the volunteers don't do anything that even potentially looks bad, and one of the rules is that an adult must never ask a child to keep a secret. Even if the secret isn't a sign of something really harmful, like "don't tell your parents about our special touching games," in almost all cases of an adult asking a child to keep a secret, the secret is to the adult's benefit, usually to hide something that the adult doesn't want known. In the very rare cases when the secret is totally benign (like a surprise party), it's still a bad idea to teach children to hide things from other adults, especially their parents. Keeping a secret usually entails lying, and it's confusing to kids for adults to encourage them to lie in some cases when they're supposed to be teaching them to be truthful. Then there's the question of whether a child can even consent to keeping a secret -- it's like consenting to sex, where up to a certain age a child isn't really capable of consenting because of knowledge and power imbalances. Adults usually have some kind of power over children, so children can't really agree to keep a secret, since they probably don't have the option of not agreeing (or don't feel like they have the option). So, was Snow even able to agree to keep Regina's secret? Did she feel she had any choice? Regina's main concern was Cora, but did she expect Snow to also hide things from her father? What would Regina have done if Snow had refused to keep the secret because her father deserved to know?

 

Regina is 100 percent in the wrong here. She was caught doing something she shouldn't have been doing, made it a secret with a child, which put the child in the position of either betraying the secret or lying. Then she blamed the child's inability to lie to adults and not the person who actually killed Daniel and never seemed to take responsibility for her own actions. Now we're seeing that she harmed an innocent animal.

 

And she's yet to admit to any of this. She still seems to believe Snow wronged her but I guess is over that. As far as I'm concerned, she's not eligible for a happy ending until she takes some responsibility.

[Actionmage]

While I understand wishing ill on imaginary folks, the responses of 'yeah, torture August- he has it comin'" is a bit uncomfortable to me.

 

Yes, August was a douche when he became an adult and traveled to the other side of the world in order to avoid responsibility. As a result of that epic dodge, he turned into a wooden puppet because he could not make the Savior Believe. Then, when faced with Tamera, he dies (moves past wood-killing taser) at Emma's feet. To save him, Blue turns him into a pre-teen boy with no memory of his last 30 years.  When we look in on Pinocchio and Gepetto, the few times we have, they have been very happy and seemed to have bonded as if the curse never happened.

 

But now the Mayor/Evil-ish Hero Queen and the Savior are asking questions about time he has absolutely no memory. A day or so later Evil-ish Hero Queen is throwing sleeping spells and spiriting this kid away to face her and four other known Evil People!  One turns Pinocchio back into August and some in the audience are all " Dude earned whatever. He was a dick" (essentially.)   Is the criteria for physical torture a measure of your dickishness? 

 

Also, the fact that torture doesn't produce correct info should play into kidnapping a 10-12 year old kid. Even when you make allowances for adult August to be the one tortured, why would anyone think this Shirker of the First Magnitude would in any way, shape, or form actually know squat about The Author? Because August  took a bookbinding course once?  That is insane. Bookbinding =/= Knowing the person who wrote the book.

 

It is the casual fallback to physical torture the villains on this show have, and the "wev" response it evokes in the show's audience. It's the non-look at what the word "torture" evokes in people's minds IRL and that makes me angry. It is only pretend people getting hurt on this show, and this is supposed to be escapist fare (Fairy Tales! In our world!) Yet if the writer(s) didn't want to evoke actual torture, maybe use another word?

 

One last thought: Does Gepetto get to torture Regina over what happens to Pinocchio/August?  Because making an apology about freaking out his son then letting him become kidnapped for unknown purposes is a dick move in my opinion.

[Shanna Marie]

I don't think August deserves torture, and even though Emma might owe him a split lip, I really can't cheer for torture coming at the hands of the villains for a selfish cause. It's not even like they're desperately getting information he's deliberately withholding so they can save innocent lives.

 

But even aside from that, I find it hard to lay all the blame for Emma's life on him. For the stuff that happened during childhood, he was a child given too great a burden. You'd never put a seven-year-old in charge of a newborn with no parents around. I'm not even sure he counted as a seven-year-old -- physically, yeah, but in life experience, he'd only been around a few years. Emotionally and in life experience, he was closer to a two or three-year-old, and you'd never, ever put a child that age in sole charge of a newborn. I'm not sure he'd have made that much difference even if he had stuck around. If he and Emma had been classified as siblings, that would have made it even harder for her to be adopted, and there was a very good chance of them being separated by the system anyway. Aside from the fact that every single bit of this is Regina's fault, Gepetto has to take a lot of this blame for making an emotional decision that turned out to be poor. Everyone else was trusting Emma the Savior to break the curse, and the odds of that improved if Emma had her mother with her. Sending Pinocchio jeopardized everyone and meant that Emma and Pinocchio grew up alone. We don't know what the rest of his childhood was like, but he either ended up back in the system or grew up essentially as a feral Lost Boy, so it's not like he got the kind of training and influence he needed to be a good person. He had a lot of strikes against him.

 

As for Emma going to jail, while August taking the money was wrong, I still have to put 98 percent of the blame on Neal because Neal didn't have to listen to August. He listened to some random stranger he'd never heard of (since Pinocchio was long after his time) just because this person knew his real identity and somehow decided that letting his teenage girlfriend go to jail for his crime was a good thing for her. I know the show has repeated the "I had no choice" mantra, but really, I think it was more to do with him avoiding anything to do with his father rather than doing what was best for Emma, especially considering he took no action after receiving the "Broken" postcard.

 

And unlike some other people we could name, August realized he'd done the wrong thing, admitted it, and tried to make up for it. He tried to set right what he'd done wrong, and he was still punished for his wrongs by being turned back into wood and later killed and then turned back into a child, which erased the existence of "August." He wasn't even a villain, ever, just a guy with really bad judgment, and as far as we know, he never killed anyone, so that puts him ahead even of Hook. I think he's paid for his sins, so there's no way he deserves torture.

[tennisgurl]

 

In Enter the Dragon, it really couldn't make up its mind. Rumple is evil in the present for tricking Belle, but Maleficent killing guards and cursing Aurora was a victory?

Yeah, that kept bugging me throughout the episode. It seemed like it was kind of framed as a victory that Mal was back to her big bad evil ways, and we were supposed to be cheering her? Or what? Because...that`s ridiculous. Why would I cheer for someone to kill innocent people, and hurt poor Aurora and Philip, who have never done anything to Mal, as far as we know. I am really trying to figure out what tone they were going for here.   

[Camera One]

Isn't it always uplifting to see someone emerge from a defeatist attitude and recapture the fire and intensity that they had before a setback?  The way the episode was framed, I think we were meant to cheer Maleficent on her recovery with Cheerleader Gina by her side.  Aurora was pretty much reduced to the role of Nameless Victim.  They gave nothing for us to sympathesize with her even though she was supposedly the person being wronged here.  Plus since we know she'll end up being okay, I think we're supposed to think less of this crime.  Plus, Aurora is not a real hero.  Remember how she betrayed her friends to save her baby?  Tsk tsk.  

Edited March 17, 2015 by Camera One

[Mari]

.  Plus, Aurora is not a real hero.  Remember how she betrayed her friends to save her baby?  Tsk tsk.  

But, but, but  . . . .she was keeping a secret.  Isn't keeping a secret  or  not telling people information that others don't want them to have--even with the best of intentions--the right thing to do in all circumstances? 

 

And add me to the list that had the impression we were supposed to be pleased that Maleficent had gotten past her ennui and was ready to rampage again.  I'm not sure if we were supposed to be more pleased that Maleficent was excited about something again, or because it was Regina being helpful.

[Rumsy4]

And add me to the list that had the impression we were supposed to be pleased that Maleficent had gotten past her ennui and was ready to rampage again.  I'm not sure if we were supposed to be more pleased that Maleficent was excited about something again, or because it was Regina being helpful.

 

Same here.Was I supposed to cheer these two losers on while they were being petty and taking out their frustrations on innocent horses and people who never did them any harm? Regina was like an anti-Anna, spreading destruction and pettiness all around. This episode is a perfect example of the shifting morality A&E employ to make the "villains" look like the victims.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Rumsy4

[jhlipton]

Then she blamed the child's inability to lie to adults and not the person who actually killed Daniel and never seemed to take responsibility for her own actions.

Regina has never blamed Cora for anything. That's a big part of the problem.

=======================================================

In another show, Regina would realize that Mal was right -- revenge is totally the wrong "hobby". Regina screwed up her own life by fixating on Snow; now she has Mal fixating on Aurora Yay?

[Shanna Marie]

Regina has never blamed Cora for anything. That's a big part of the problem.

The crazy thing is, they gave themselves the perfect setup for Regina having a big epiphany that would lead to a true redemption when Cora revealed that she'd been plotting all of this from the start -- that she'd murdered Eva, then set up Snow's riding incident that allowed Regina to rescue her. Then anyone with an ounce of goodness and a grain of sense would have realized that Cora was the problem all along, that if she'd planned all of this going back that far, then there was no way Regina would have been allowed to run away with the stableboy, that it really had nothing to do with anything Snow did, and Snow was as much a victim in all this as Regina was. Then Regina could have made an active choice to turn against evil by turning against her mother and teamed up with Snow to defeat Cora. And then I would have believed in her redemption because I would have known that she knew exactly where she went wrong and would have done something to try to fix it.

 

Instead, Regina was treated like a victim when Snow killed Cora (never mind that Regina herself had ordered Hook to kill Cora and had been happy when she believed Hook had killed Cora), Snow was seen to be in the wrong, and Snow has groveled repeatedly to Regina about it while Regina has yet to apologize for anything, only grudgingly admits that the fact that Cora murdered Snow's mother complicates the situation, and Regina still seems to totally blame Snow for Daniel's death. Plus, Regina got even worse after learning this about Cora, because it was after that discovery that she made her failsafe plan, destroyed all the magic beans, and was planning to destroy the whole town, killing everyone in it, so she could escape with Henry and have him all to herself, with his memory wiped to keep him from knowing what she'd done.

 

The really, really crazy thing is that it wouldn't have actually changed much about the plot if Regina had turned on Cora and used that as her turning point in redemption. The failsafe plot wasn't that necessary because Greg and Tamara didn't need that to kidnap Henry and take him to Neverland. It mostly seemed to exist to turn Regina into a hero (by undoing what she started), but that would have already been done by her turning on Cora. The only thing we would need to find another way to deal with would be the destruction of the magic beans and something for Hook to be running from before he turned back. I guess Greg and Tamara could have set up some kind of destruction and ruined the beans without Regina's involvement.

[Dani-Ellie]

Then Regina could have made an active choice to turn against evil by turning against her mother and teamed up with Snow to defeat Cora. And then I would have believed in her redemption because I would have known that she knew exactly where she went wrong and would have done something to try to fix it.

 

Exactly. This is the biggest missed opportunity in the entire series for me.

 

When Cora was trying to convince Regina to kill Henry's entire family, I honestly thought the situation was going to come down to Regina having to choose between Cora and Henry. That Regina would finally see that Cora did not in fact want what was best for Regina and that she never did and that Cora had manipulated or helped manipulate so very much of Regina's hardships. It would have been a powerful and empowering moment for Regina, to finally see the truth and to choose to rise above it, to refuse to be complicit in it anymore.

 

But nope. That's not the direction they chose and I don't think I will ever understand why.

[Serena]

I still can't believe that Regina didn't kill Cora. Like, it was just where I thought they were obviously going. It was the only LOGICAL thing for them to do for Regina's redemption. She spends 30+ years blaming an innocent girl instead of the true culprit, Cora - when she gets redeemed, wouldn't it be OBVIOUS for her to realize Cora's culpability? And then kill her herself, maybe to save Henry? The fact that it didn't end up the way the story was organically going was one of the first hints these writers are hacks. Like, it's not even a curveball or a surprising development - it's them bulding up something and then totally not delivering on the potential.

[Camera One]

But nope. That's not the direction they chose and I don't think I will ever understand why.

 

The reason was the writer's whole purpose for having Snow kill Cora was to give Regina a more legitimate and more recent reason for hating Snow.  If anything, "Bleeding Through" should have been Regina's light-bulb moment, but all she could croak out was "It's complicated" and we got a flashback which lay the blame at the feet of Snow's parents.

[Curio]

Like, it's not even a curveball or a surprising development - it's them bulding up something and then totally not delivering on the potential.

 

If this show ever had a tagline, it would be Once: Wasted Potential.

[Shanna Marie]

The fact that it didn't end up the way the story was organically going was one of the first hints these writers are hacks. Like, it's not even a curveball or a surprising development - it's them bulding up something and then totally not delivering on the potential.

They seem to have good instincts that they then totally ignore because the series is full of things like this where it's like they set something up unconsciously and then veer off in a different direction because they don't see what they set up. Or maybe they're consciously veering away for fear that it's what's boring and expected. The trick to entertaining writing is to surprise in a way that seems inevitable -- it's not necessarily what you see coming, but looking back, you realize it had to go that way. You also don't have to surprise on every beat. Sometimes it's very satisfying to have the thing you want to happen be what happens, and I think Cora was a case for that. It would still have been a huge twist for Regina to suddenly turn on Cora after realizing that it was Cora who'd made her miserable. A Regina and Snow team would have been a nice twist on the story that had come before, but it would also have been very satisfying because we would have seen right prevail, justice done and a character making a change. Turning Regina into a victim was neither a surprising twist nor satisfying. It weakened the character for her to fall into her mother's trap.

[CatMack]

I'm a big fan of the 100 on the CW.  Post apocalyptic teen drama - started off slow, got really freaking fantastic once they found their footing.  And this is a show where no one has the moral high ground.  Pretty much everyone on the show has done something horrible (although usually for actually understandable reasons like survival, not misplaced aggression).  The most recent season finale had the lead character do something that is pretty on par with Regina in terms of body count (which included innocent people).  And yet I love pretty much all the characters on the 100, including said protagonist.  It's one of my favorite shows on TV despite having all of their characters doing morally ambiguous things.  It's because of the way they handle the complexity of human nature and morality, and the way they're willing to ask questions without necessarily giving an easy answer.

 

I think Once's problem is they want to have moral ambiguity like that - they want to show their "villains" aren't all bad and that the "heroes" aren't all good - but they cling so stubbornly to childish fairytale rhetoric to do it.  And in the right hands maybe that could work.  Someone like Neil Gaiman perhaps, who writes complex things using quirky language all the time.  But in the hands of these writers?  It's too clunky.  They can't figure out how to show shades of gray while still using language like villains and heroes and happy endings.  They want to use familiar fairytales and fairytale tropes to do all the world building and character development for them, but fairytales aren't known for being complex.  They are, generally speaking, very straightforward simplistic morality tales for children.  And you can absolutely expand on that and make it more complex, but not without being willing to grow beyond the fairytale framework.  

[Shanna Marie]

I think Once's problem is they want to have moral ambiguity like that - they want to show their "villains" aren't all bad and that the "heroes" aren't all good - but they cling so stubbornly to childish fairytale rhetoric to do it.

That really is a lot of the problem -- they're trying to be twisty and subversive even while being recognizably Disney, and things get mangled along the way.

 

So they give us an Evil Queen who is actually worse than the one in the fairy tale or Disney movie -- since I don't recall the Evil Queen in the story harming anyone other than Snow White. She was after Snow White for a really shallow reason, but there's no mention of her slaughtering villages, ripping hearts out of people left and right, sending children to their deaths, or cursing entire kingdoms. And they give us a Snow White who's a lot more interesting than in the fairy tale or Disney movie -- she's a lot more active and less passive, she's not just hanging around at the dwarfs' house, doing their housework and pining for a prince to come rescue her, she's out making friends and fighting against the Evil Queen as well as she can, she has an actual relationship with the prince before he kisses her corpse, and she's not such a twit (the version in the fairy tale is fooled multiple times by the queen in disguise, while our Snow takes the apple willingly to save the man she loves).

 

And then they tell us that they're being all twisty and subversive because the Evil Queen is actually a victim and isn't that bad, and they tell us that Snow isn't really that good, and she had it coming because she told a secret when she was a child. That's not subversive. That's nonsense. You can't give us a character who's darker than just about any fairy tale villain and then tell us that things aren't as black and white as in fairy tales and she's just misunderstood.

[KingOfHearts]

I would tolerate Regina and Henry throwing "villain", "hero" and "happy ending" around if someone like Emma told them to shut up once in a while. Heck, I could go for this Author plot if a main character called out how stupid it is. But since none of the characters are allowed to contradict what A&E believe, it's annoying. We're only presented one view in a show that's supposed to be blurring lines.

[KAOS Agent]

I've never been a fan of their use of the labels "hero" & "villains" even from the start. Little Henry could get away with it because his mentality was black and white, but then they started having the adults using those same black and white rules. "Heroes don't kill" is particularly stupid. One of the things I've always disagreed on was the idea that somehow Emma was a hero just because she was destined to break a curse. Emma is a fairly gray character and I liked her pragmatism. Now they make her say stupid things like "I thought we were the good guys" when talking about Eva's actions. The character of Emma would have easily viewed that as an acceptable gray area and wouldn't be applying a ridiculous "good" vs "bad" label to it. 

 

Even worse, Regina proclaimed herself a hero for beating Zelena. For me that didn't fall into the category of heroism. She used her stronger power to defeat a weaker person. Heroism involves much more than a show of strength. It's sacrifice and courage and nobility. Was she a hero simply because she was playing on the side of "good" and they won? This show has never really given a clear definition of hero or villain, so I have a particular dislike of them now claiming that they want to play with the ideas of what makes a hero and what makes a villain. 

Edited March 20, 2015 by KAOS Agent

[tennisgurl]

So...Emma saying she could understand wanting to rip out Rumples heart, after he almost killed her boyfriend, almost killed her, and is generally the resident Big Bad, is one of the signs that her heart is turning dark? The way Snow made it sound, Emma just admitted to throwing a basket of puppies off a cliff! Its not like she even did it, or really threatened to. She just sid she understood it. That`s not darkness, that's just a natural response. Of course she wants to hurt someone who hurt her and her loved ones! Granted, shes cool with Regina, but that's a whole different issue...

 

I still don't get Mal`s big prophesy about Emma "maybe, possibly" becoming evil. Like....so what? Anyone can be possibly evil. Is evil genetic now? Can you catch evil, but cure it with Ibuprofen?

 

I cheered when Ariel dropped the "maybe that's because villains always go about getting them the wrong way" line. Sweet, sweet logic! Like in this episode, what got Ursula her happy ending? Her father and Hook apologizing and helping her, and Ursula being proactive to try to find her voice. When she got it, BAM, happy ending for everyone! Then she stopped doing evil things! Between Ariel`s line and Marco`s rant the other week, I almost feel like this whole dumb author thing might actually be going somewhere interesting? Where the villains learn to take responsibility for their own actions? Maybe?  

[Dani-Ellie]

That`s not darkness, that's just a natural response. Of course she wants to hurt someone who hurt her and her loved ones!

 

Not to mention that one of Emma's favorite threats is to punch someone in the face and she was willing to kill Ingrid. Emma threatening violence is not something way out of the ordinary, is my point. I take that more to be Snow overreacting than anything having to do with Emma as a person.

[YaddaYadda]

Emma released Pan on the other side of the town line where he didn't have magic and was prepared to shoot him, kill him.  'Nuff said.

 

Seriously, anyone who feels okay with Rumple being back in town after everything he has done is out of their ever loving mind.  But really, all Rumple did was try to put Emma in a hat, she's not important enough to her parents, so who cares, really?  They have baby Do Over.

 

This makes me so angry.

[KingOfHearts]

 

I still don't get Mal`s big prophesy about Emma "maybe, possibly" becoming evil. Like....so what? Anyone can be possibly evil. Is evil genetic now? Can you catch evil, but cure it with Ibuprofen?

My understanding is that because Emma is so powerful, whatever she does that's "good" or "bad" is greatly amplified.

[Shanna Marie]

It's funny that after we were talking here about doing a My Name is Earl type plot with Regina, they did an episode that was essentially Hook doing that, trying to set right a wrong he once did. And that's more proof that the Author plot is silly, since it was several people working together to break a vengeance cycle that ended up giving both Ursula and Poseidon a happy ending. It took Hook recognizing the wrong he did to Ursula and getting over wanting revenge on Poseidon, Ursula being willing to let go of her anger at her father and at Hook, Poseidon letting go of his anger at his daughter, Hook, and mankind in general, and Ariel never giving in to a desire for vengeance against Hook, even though she had good reason to hate him. Hook was able to undermine Rumple and remove one of his allies by being good to someone else rather than being angry and striking back, and he learned that one thing that separates the villains from the heroes is the way they go about their goals.

 

So all this should be a major sign that maybe instead of chasing after the Author and studying the book, the way to find a happy ending would be to let go of hatred and vengeance and help and forgive other people.

 

The different ways Hook and Regina are going about this remind me of the Bible story about the two men in the temple -- there's the one who stands in front, looking up to the heavens and talking about how many good deeds he's done, and then there's the one who bows his head and throws himself on God's mercy because he knows he's a sinner. We have Regina all "but I'm a hero now because I quit killing people, and I deserve a happy ending!" and Hook, who's worried that he's done too much wrong to merit a happy ending but who's trying to undo the wrongs he's done.

[tennisgurl]

I am REALLY looking forward to this upcoming episode. I feel like I am going to have a lot to say on this topic, and a lot to drink that night.

[Mari]

Snow and David's evil baby adventures are a bad thing.  I'm not going to claim that it was okay to take a shapeshifter's egg, and stuff it full of your child's potential evil.

 

But, I'm having trouble caring too much. 

 

For one thing, shortly before Snow and David take eggbaby,  Maleficent was pretty evil.  There were several curses that she cast just for fun, and she killed a lot of people.  I'm not so sure that she's someone that we'd want being in charge of a child.

 

I know that A&E would point at Regina and Henry, and say "See how that worked out!"  But the thing is, I did see Regina and Henry.  She was abusive, and Henry was pretty much tasked with reforming her.  That's not a child's job or responsibility, or reasonable, and I think it's unsettling that the show is pushing "Have a baby!  You'll quit being evil!"

 

She razed a village right before she laid her egg.  That's killing a lot of people.  I don't expect it to ever, ever be addressed.  So, apparently, she doesn't have to make amends, because a Bad Thing happened to her.  Yay.

 

I am not saying that two wrongs make a right, or we shouldn't try for forgiveness.  But, seriously, show?  What's the point in watching when the people who actually, regularly do very horrible things are treated as pretty sobbing victims when someone does one thing back?

[Shanna Marie]

I am not saying that two wrongs make a right, or we shouldn't try for forgiveness.  But, seriously, show?  What's the point in watching when the people who actually, regularly do very horrible things are treated as pretty sobbing victims when someone does one thing back?

I mentioned the villain double standard in the episode thread -- the one wrong thing a hero does is treated as far worse than all the many horrible things the villains do, and anything the heroes do to the villains is counted as far worse than anything the villains do to the heroes.

 

Plus, it seems like bad things in a person's past are only treated as reasons or mitigating factors if it's a villain. The heroes get no such consideration.

 

If Snow were a villain, we'd have been reminded of the fact that she grew up with a stepmother who didn't do such a good job of hiding her loathing and who then cast her out of her own home and tried repeatedly to murder her, and that would have explained why she was so terrified of her baby turning out to be evil or dark. She'd grown up with Regina, so she knew real darkness and therefore had a reasonable fear of it.

 

Which, now that I think about it, could actually explain some of Snow's fear and why she was so much more afraid than David was. She's lived with that darkness for much of her life. This isn't a hypothetical to her.

 

But only Mal gets any kind of excuse for her evil (never mind the number of people we've seen her kill before all this happened and the fact that by this time she'd already put both Aurora and her mother under a sleeping curse). I'm trying to remember how many hero sob stories we've seen. There was Emma being abandoned by Neal shown to explain why she stranded Hook on top of the beanstalk. I guess seeing Snow's mother's death might have been a hero sob story to lead into Snow killing Cora, except it wasn't treated that way. The show didn't really cut her any slack for that. Maybe most of the season one fairybacks counted, as they showed the trials these people had gone through in the past before they became their cursed selves.

[Camera One]

Kudos to the actress who did a great job transforming Maleficent's face with the waterworks, but between "What kind of people are you, threatening a child?" and "Mother to mother, have mercy", I'm not sure how much more overwrought it could have gotten.  

 

If you think about it, Snow and Charming are basically the REAL Cruella's, taking animal babies from their loving mother.  They're also the REAL Maleficent, cursing an innocent child with a bleak future of darkness.  Heck, they're the REAL Rumple, taking someone's firstborn.  Hook is the REAL Ursula, stealing her voice.  Emma is stuck with a bunch of bad bad evil people, it's no wonder she is prime for evil herself.  

Edited March 31, 2015 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

If you think about it, Snow and Charming are basically the REAL Cruella's, taking animal babies from their loving mother.  They're also the REAL Maleficent, cursing an innocent child with a bleak future of darkness.  Heck, they're the REAL Rumple, taking someone's firstborn.  Hook is the REAL Ursula, stealing her voice.  Emma is stuck with a bunch of bad bad evil people, it's no wonder she is prime for evil herself.  

 

Man...

[tennisgurl]

I really need to know how much The Author was pulling the strings with Snow and Charming before making any major judgement. Hell, this could change everything about who is good, and who is evil. How many people have been forced into evil by The Author? Or is it just this one thing? 

[KingOfHearts]

Leave it to primetime television to make us all sympathetic toward a villain losing her child without giving a thought to the entire village she torched. I will say they did a better job with this than Regina's lasagna.

Edited April 1, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[Actionmage]

Why do I get the felling that A&E want us to think " A torched village is a statistic, but an egg!baby is a tragedy"?

 

Thousands of nameless, faceless peasants all across the Enchanted Forest have faced Rumple, Regina and Maleficent. Yet, if Snow gets ill at seeing the carnage Regina ordered, Snow is being "unfair" to Regina?  As Shanna Marie pointed out, Mal put two generations of royalty under a curse, but we're not supposed to notice the torched village that was razed so she could have privacy/ safety for her child? Rumple has manipulated Regina's path more than any Author, but don't worry about that? Just be disgusted at the depravity Snow and David did ( as they were railroaded due to Plot) and don't remember anything from the previous 3 seasons or any "timeline". 

 

eta: Lily is a tragic character. We will never know how she would have reacted to being Mal's daughter. Lily could have been hellish or could have rebelled by being a hero herself.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Actionmage