I'd like to remove the Hunchback of Notre Dame entry on this page. I think the implied premise that a woman ought to be a prize for good behavior, or that being good entitles you to a woman's romantic affections, is really disturbing. —Quixotess
Tenko: I took these two off, because they're both from parodies...
- Dai Mahou Touge ends with the main character, Punie, learning a Family-Unfriendly Aesop. In order to prove herself as worthy to be the heir of the throne of Magical Land, she must demonstrate the quality necessary to defeat her two sisters (who, at the time, were under the effects of a Glam Of Shazam-type potion). That quality is treachery/cunning, and because of it she earns the undying respect of Paya-tan.
- Avenue Q, that twentysomethings' love letter to Sesame Street, would be incomplete without a Family Unfriendly Aesop. Specifically, the closing number, "For Now," is the characters' sober reflection that nothing is permanent, and that most people, including our hero, never find a purpose in life. So the most you can do is try to be a good friend and make the best of what life hands you. Not exactly inspiring, but certainly not misleading either.
- This Troper thinks that that particular lesson is probably the best and most true and applicable one ever taught.
- Of course, this comes after such life lessons as "we're all racist to a minor degree, so we all cancel each other out" and "porn is the only safe investment on the stock market." As well, throwing pennies off of skyscrapers is a good idea!
- The whole show is based on Refuge in Audacity.
doesn't seem to me to specifically say "Catholicism is bad'', more "unthinking and unyielding obedience to a specific set of rules doesn't make you a good person; generosity, compassion and understanding do". If the intent had been to portray the Church as evil, the antagonist would have been the priest, not the mayor. At no point does anybody specifically say "Hey, we shouldn't go to church any more" - in fact, the end shows the villagers going to church on Easter morning, then to Vianne's festival, showing that Christianity doesn't need to be joyless and dour.
Working Title: For the love of God, Montressor!: From YKTTW
: Sorry for the unhonorable bumping of this question, but this is important: should we take in account wether the aesops presented in this page and Broken Aesop
's example list are actual aesops or simply Accidental Aesops
? Sometimes I feel half of these examples are not even aesops in first place, just plot points or even some jokes.
: Why the hell do we have this? Isn't this just a repeat of Family-Unfriendly Aesop
? I quote: "An ending which preaches an unusual moral. People may agree with it, but you'd never expect to see it get past the censors." This Trope is freaking identical for all intents and purposes, only it lacks even one example. I suggest dropping it.
: This is supposed to be an alternative to Family-Unfriendly Aesop
, which has attracted so much Fan Cruft
as to be almost completely useless. This article has a clearer title, so the consensus on YKTTW
was leaning towards deleting Family-Unfriendly Aesop
: I thought we wanted Fan Cruft
- that's what it says at the Fan Cruft
entry at least. If there's Natter in the Family-Unfriendly Aesop
entry then cut it, but creating a new trope name and deleting the old is an absurd way of cleaning it up.
Incidentally, aren't you supposed to have at least three examples before creating a page?
: I lost access to the internet shortly after creating this; it's why there aren't examples. I was going to add them today and delete the old entry — it was the consensus in the YKTKW — but of course, a lot of people probably never saw the YKTKW. Calling people again: do we want to remove the old one and replace it with an (example-filled) version of this? I created both the old Family-Unfriendly Aesop
and this, and I think the introductory text here is clearer.
: I'd humbly suggest rather than deleting the old entry, we have this one for Family Friendly shows and kids shows that preach an aesop (intentionally or unintentionally) that might not be wrong but seems unsuitable for the target audience, and keep Family-Unfriendly Aesop
for stuff that isn't so much unsuitable as plain "wrong". For example:
The occasional Star Trek episodes that seem to suggest racism is fine go to Family-Unfriendly Aesop
The Little Mermaid example where Ariel leaves all her friends to hook up with a guy she hardly knows goes here.
That's the way I'd do it, but that's only IMHO. If there's a consensus that it'd be better to delete Family-Unfriendly Aesop
and re-fill this one with it's examples, then OK.
: The problem is that Family-Unfriendly Aesop
inevitably gets filled up with people complaining about any plot element they find even mildly objectionable, so it ends up being incredibly subjective and full of natter
, Complaining About Shows You Don't Like
, and self-righteous preaching.
: My mistake in writing Family-Unfriendly Aesop
, I think, was having a trope which boils down to "An Aesop
, but bad," which means there is no criteria for an entry other than whether you don't like it. The inspiration for it (and for this)was shows where the aesops made my jaw drop — "they did not just say that!" The focus should be shifted to the surprise, not to whether the moral is good or bad.
But a problem I can see with Family-Unfriendly Aesop
already — it looks like it means "not suitable for children." That's only part of what I meant. It also means aesops that are surprising for adults to see in an adult show. Again, this doesn't mean the moral is good or bad...the adults may all agree with the moral. They just didn't expect to see it, because morals like the one from "The Darkness and the Light" are so rare in adults-only shows, even if they're sometimes sensible.
: OK, now I'm really confused. Warped Aesop
now turns into Family-Unfriendly Aesop
when you type it, but there's still a Warped Aesop
page? Anyway, if this page is for surprising aesops, we still need a page for aesops that preach a message most people would disagree with, otherwise this page will just fill up with them.
: Okay, wasn't this page supposed to replace Broken Aesop
and Warped Aesop
? Wasn't there a YKTTW
: No, just Warped Aesop
(which is being worked on). Broken Aesop
is well defined, it just needed some cleanup.
: For everyone who's confused by the above, Fast Eddie
ran something through the server to replace every instance of "Warped Aesop" on the wiki with "Family-Unfriendly Aesop
". That's how serious we are about replacing the old page with this one.
: Okay, this is the exact same thing as Warped Aesop
in examples, but the criteria is different. Why don't we just stick with Warped Aesop
: This conversation seems to be going in circles...
Again: The idea behind the change was that Warped Aesop
had become a bastion of Fan Cruft
, incredible subjectivity, natter
, and pure wrongheaded stupidity, to the extent that it could not be saved. So its core concept was moved here, to give it a fresh start and the opportunity to not
be unbearably annoying.
: This was discussed at length in ykttw! Here is the thread in question!
The time for discussing this has since passed. All that remains is to finish transferring stuff and put Warped Aesop out of its misery.
: Transfered the final example to Broken Aesop
. Now to resume transferring those Warped Aesop
entries that fit the new, narrower definition. My Old Shame
, the Warped Aesop
article, will probably be killed off by tonight.
: So we officially do not have and will not have a page for morals that are actually bad instead of merely being jarring and unexpected?
: Unless you can suggest a universal definition of "bad" that will not immediately descend into bickering, natter and Complaining About Plotlines You Don't Like, yes, that's correct.
- In Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Willy Wonka explicitly states he gives Charlie the factory because Charlie won't change things from the way Wonka does things. The wicked children, by contrast, question Wonka all the time. As a result, the moral can be seen as "do what adults tell you to do and don't think for yourself."
...if you can't see the much-more-obvious lessons attached to how the other characters were being selfish jerks and Charlie a good person, and that this goodpersonhood is why
Charlie wouldn't change things, then yes, the moral can
be seen that way!
- Ender's Game; in which we learn that genocide is sometimes justified, if you really, really don't understand the other guy.
The entire ending showed that, no, the genocide wasn't
justified, and you should try to understand the other guy before
doing such things.
PANTS: I agree that the entire series eventually Retcons the justifiable genocide into a big mistake, but as Card himself has stated; the first book, Ender's Game, is an attempt to explore when, if ever, genocide is acceptable. And if you go back and re-read the final court scene, Ender is exonerated for his crimes and is remorseless during Graff's testimony. In later books he comes to regret his actions.
: ...dangit, it's been a while. But the discovery of the new queen and Ender's realization of what a terrible thing he's done happens in the first book, doesn't it?
PANTS: I think so, but even if, then at best the book becomes a treatise on the morality of intent. So it is still a justification of the xenocide, only here the justification is, I didn't know I was killing off a species. Still a family unfriendly aesop, IMO (but not a warped one, which is why in part I think it belongs here.).
: Fair enough.
Later: "Also it's okay to kill people who bully you, so long as you pretend not to know they were dead." No. No no no no no no no, no no no no no. No.
: Ender had a Heroic BSOD
when he realized what he did. I wouldn't call that a way of saying "Genocide is a-okay". If anything the aesop is the opposite of the suggested one, that you should try to understand the other guy before
killing them all.
: See, that's precisely what I think.
: How long do we wait for a counter-argument before we cut it?
: Another day?
- A possible case is the Spider-Man story ''One More Day." Editor-in-Chief Joe Quesada has wanted to end Spider-Man's marriage for years. So the story has Spidey sacrifice his marriage, by a literal Deal with the Devil, in order to save his dying elderly aunt. The moral seemed to be that the life of someone who is going to die soon anyway is more important than true love, and your possible children. More likely, the only point of the story was ending the marriage, and Quesada was not trying to preach any moral at all, family unfriendly or otherwise.
- Actually, from his own mouth, Spider-Man staying married would mean he would then grow old and die. So the moral is that being single means eternal youth or that getting married is basically a death sentence for men. Definitely not An Aesop that would fly for some. You have to wonder if Quesada's wife has heard about this stuff.
- The vibe I got was "change is bad; if you change, the universe will conspire to return you to the status quo."
The "not trying to preach any moral at all bit" kicks this out of qualifying for this page.
: Well I would argue that it is trying to preach the moral that it's bad for Spider-Man
to be married.
: That's not a moral, it's a statement of opinion. The moral of the story is the lesson it's trying to teach us, to change or inform our behavior; I don't think "Spider-Man shouldn't get married" is going to change the way I act every day.
Plus, really, the story itself doesn't
say that it's bad for Spider-Man to be married; his marriage to Mary Jane is presented as True Love, so powerful and good that the devil himself yearns to be rid of it. If there's any moral here, it's that you should sacrifice love for family. But then, I very much doubt that level of thought was put into it.
: Also: Has Miss Martian actually become
a villain? Or is that talking about the Titans Tomorrow version, which doesn't count for this at all?
: Not exactly. The mind of her TT self is currently lodged in the current Miss Martians brain. Where things go from there, god knows...
: Ah. Pulling that bit, then:
- This was later repeated with Miss Martian, who despite being a White Martian seemed to want nothing but to do good and fit in with her teammates whom she rather liked... only to later bow to the apparent editorial decree that "What you come from is what you are and trying to change or better yourself is pointless and impossible" and became a mustache-twirling villain.
- Note that that was in a possible future, where most of the protagonists had become villains. However, it was in that same story arc that we learned that it's okay to promise to commit suicide in order to gain power over your future self, so...
(Also, that whole commit suicide thing? Totally and completely not an aesop: "Note that just because something happens in a story, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a Family Unfriendly Aesop.")
- The Hunchback of Notre Dame: Pretty people should be together... ugly people have to wait for the direct-to-DVD sequel. That moral was less unusual than the one in the original book, which was "Ugly people can't get away with anything, but not even your prettiness will save you."
Not An Aesop
. At the very least not an intentional one. It's just as easy to argue that the Aesop was "If you're a Stalker with a Crush
and finally meet and get to know whoever you've taken a fancy to, then it's okay to just be friends".
- A Family-Unfriendly Aesop for a different reason: In "The Abandoned", the moral is that some alien species are inherently evil, even if good people raise them. There is nothing inherently wrong or awful about this moral (who can say what aliens are like?), but given that Star Trek aliens are almost always used as metaphors for dealing with other human cultures, it feels highly unfriendly.
- "Honesty is the Best Policy" is one of the Stock Aesops - face it, how many shows have you seen where a little lie leads to bigger ones, and Hijinks Ensue? So it's a bit surprising that Digimon has one episode drop an anvil that little white lies are justified if lives are on the line.
"Little white lies are justified if lives are on the line" is not a bad aesop.
- Ender's Game; in which we learn that genocide is sometimes justified, if you really, really don't understand the other guy.
Suggested Aesop is blatantly disproved by the sequels.
: They don't have to be bad
aesops, just jarring and probably not appropriate for kids and the less-morally-sophisticated. I think "there's times when you really should
lie" is the definition of a Family Unfriendly Aesop. Ergo, restoring both "The Abandoned" and Digimon
As for Ender's Game, there's a conversation between PANTS and I above you may want to chime in on.
: I'm probably going to open up all kinds of discussion about morality and ethics, but there are
times when you should lie. (Case in point: If the SS
knock on your door and asks you if there are any political dissidents in the building, then it's okay not to tell them about the trapdoor in the cellar).
Should we really have "jarring" as a criteria for this article? It seems like that could go out of hand very quickly.
: That's what I'm saying.
: Hmm, I knew I had some good argument against it, but I can't remember it now.
I've re-read the article, and you're probably right about keeping the Digimon
and Star Trek
: I don't want to add natter to the page, but isn't "For The Uniform" the Les Miserables
episode of DS 9
? If it's the one I'm thinking of, then he wasn't just bluffing, he was deliberately playing the role of Javert, knowing that Eddington would then do what Jean Valjean would do. He had no intention of actually following through. We was being Genre Savvy
, at least for the genre that Eddington thought the were in.
What about 24
? A lot of people seem to think that because Jack Bauer tortures terrorists and other people in a TV show that it is fine to torture terror suspects in real life.
: Tragic The Dragon
, I would have words with thee...
- The series Bucky O'Hare and the Toad Wars is arguably just "Family Unfriendly Aesop: The Series!" The show is set in an alternate universe populated by anthropomorphic animals (except for one human Teen Genius who joins the crew by improbable means). There is a war between the various mammalian species and the Toads. Now, it's not like we've never seen that before, but consider this: the Toad planet has been taken over by an evil computer. The computer was created to streamline gridlock, but instead militarized their society and brainwashed the Toads into conquering other worlds. So now the other animals are fighting what are basically armies of brainwashed minions. Now, some Tropers have argued that "Brainwashing and subjigating other cultures is bad" is the real message, but...
...Two things: 1) Please don't take my remarks out of context; you know full well that was in response to a different example. 2) What exactly is the problem? Brainwashed or not, the Toads are still trying to conquer the aniverse...
: Cutting the following from the Abraham
If God tells you to fly an airplane into a building, then you should do it!
: deleted because I was talking about the Flopsy scheme, and two wrongs don't make a right anyway
- Keep in mind that Toph says that she isn't scamming innocents. She's scamming scammers. The people who she scams are doing the rock under the moving coconuts (and you have to guess which coconut has the rock). However, they palm the rock. She's just stopping them from palming the rock, and of course, make the rock go into the coconut that she chooses. It was wrong, but she wasn't scamming innocent people.
- She wasn't scamming innocents. At first. By the time she got to the Flopsy scheme, though...
Conversation in the Main Page
- Probably because there usually isn't any kind of karmic retribution for people like that. They just keep on being nasty and getting whatever they want without suffering the consequences.
. And I'd disagree.
- The message that seems to run through most of Maria-sama Ga Miteru is that the girls of the popular posse are somehow special and shouldn't be bothered too much by the "non-special" crowd. It is obviously a device to avoid an explosion of characters (with limited success), but "unwanted" girls are generally depicted as creepy stalkers who have to be kept at bay. This is especially egregious in the episode with minor character Mifuyu, which is clearly used to drive this point home. Mifuyu is depicted as an obsessive personality who is forced to face that she is nothing special compared to her rival for the attention of the school's Onee-sama. Maybe this is an effect of the Japanese emphasis on conformity and "knowing your proper place".
- That was only one episode. Remember that the arc plot of the first season was basically how 'ordinary girl' Yumi thought she was unworthy to be on the student council, and how the others worked to prove her wrong. Also: the Valentine's Day episode, where Yuko said explicitly that she wanted all the others students to interact with the council and not treat them like exalted figures.
- Oh, plus the first OVA where Sachiko's snooty rich-bitch 'friends' try to show Yumi up at the Grandmother's party, but she wins the old lady over with her innocent charm. That's a pretty standard, friendly aesop really.
If Somethings Wrong Take It Out Dammit
- But Deadeye did steal from the dimension-hopping boy genius Willie De Witt in that very episode, without realizing he was only taking play money. He returned it later, and it was used to scam the bad guy.
- "pirate with questionable morals", remember?
created to streamline gridlock, but which militarizes their society and brainwashes them into conquering other worlds (this in itself is pretty Warped)
- This Troper suspects "Brainwashing and subjugating other cultures is bad" might be the real message, although You Should Know This Already. Besides, it's a brainwashed culture, so "mindless commercalism" is probably all the Toads have the brain for.
The first part is unnecessary detail in a long entry, the second seems... kinda pointless. So?
: Just trying to point out the context.
: I don't quite get it, though. `.`
((Concatenated)): This troper's recent changes seem to have completely disappeared from existence. Assuming he remembers Frankenstein correctly the Docor's mother asked him to marry his stepsister and have children (definite Squick since our minds do not diffentiate between step and real relative.) Some of Bioshock's designers are apparently Objectivists so they believe these things to at least some extent. Frak Fontaine brought down Rapture by forming a workers' rebellion using technologically enhanced soldiers so the Aesop even if unintentional or uwanted is unpleasantly clear.
: You don't have to say This Troper
in discussion, by the way. Anyway, note that not everything that happens in a story is supposed to be the message. Just because there are characters who practice incest doesn't mean that the writer is promoting incest. Similarly, just because someone was able to use the freedom granted by workers' rights to do something bad doesn't mean that the author thinks the rights themselves are a bad idea. I haven't played Bioshock
, so I'm not going to take it out myself, but...
: I have aquired the habit of when I cut something from an article, I then go to the discussion page to copy the example for posterity and explain the reasoning behidnd the removal. This time I could not to so in a timely manner since this page was being edited first by Concatenated and then by Ununnilium
- Frankenstein: Incest is good, science bad.
Since they are Not Blood Siblings
it isn't incest, and Science Is Bad
is a simplification of a very complex
book. As the Misaimed Fandom
article says: "The original book was about taking responsibility for your actions, and most of Frankenstein's rants about fate and playing God were just him trying to justify the fact that he abandoned a helpless, newborn creature."
: Pulling out Bioshock
now, since it's been whittled to nothing by the caveats:
- Bioshock: Charity, workers' rights and technology will destroy the best societies. Alternate, less horrible Aesop: Respect the contributions of workers but treat them like slaves.
- Or maybe "Utopias where you're the dictator will invariably end tragically"?
- Actually no, Bioshock was a society founded without worker's rights or charities, it was based on the Randian/Heinlein Philosophy of nothing being free, and no support for anyone but those who took what they could. Arguably, it shows the result of not giving a damn about the people under you.
- What about the ending of Grease? The only way of getting the guy you want (a guy who is incidentally a self obsessed Jerkass and you're worth ten of), is dressing up like a complete slapper? Why do people love this ending? It's repellent!
- Some feel that powerful sexual appetites are natural, and that it is the repression of those natural appetites that is repellent. The whole "Sandra Dee" wholesome thing is certainly okay, like any other fetish, but to look at someone you supposedly are in love with and only want to bake their cookies in a literal sense can certainly be seen as a little weird.
Taking the Conversation in the Main Page
and Thread Mode
out of this.
- In an episode of ×××HOLiC, a woman goes to Yuko's magical shop asking for help with a problem, but keeps lying about things. Yuko gives her a magic ring that becomes dirtier as she lies, and slowly causes her body to seize up, starting with the hand she's wearing it on. Instead of modifying her bad habit, she keeps lying, and eventually notices how tarnished the ring is becoming and takes it off. At this moment, she is completely paralyzed, in the middle of the street, and hit by a truck. In the manga, she died, but in the anime she was hospitalized and learned a valuable lesson about the importance of honesty. However, Yuko had never warned her of the potential danger, and continues lying to her customers without experiencing any apparent consequences.
- This troper was under the impression that the lying was causing the paralysis (The problem she visited Yuuko about) and the ring was a counter charm to hold it off.
- Exactly. Besides, the reason why she dies is because Himawari was there, and bad things happen around Himawari. It has nothing to do with Yuuko or the ring.
: ...why were the Alternate Character Interpretations
of the story of Abraham pulled out?
: I'll leave it to someone who knows more about the show than me (i.e. anything at all) but isn't the Prince of Tennis
one a Broken Aesop
? "Don't use violence in sports" sounds fair enough to me and the complaint seems to be about how it isn't always applied.
: Nearly every Bible example needs to go, I think. The sacrifice of Issac is one of the knottiest philosophical problems in the Bible and is hardly taken as a quick and easy "blind obedience" Aesop. Lot (he of the "no, no, gang-rape my daughters!") was a bad person
and is not to be followed. He got out of Sodom purely on strength of being Abraham's cousin, not righteousness. The fig tree thing's real moral, which Jesus gives in the next damn sentence
(why does nobody do the fucking research), is "with prayer all things are possible", which is debatable based on religious preference or lack thereof but is certainly not family unfriendly, and nobody prayed for the bears to come and tear up the kids, God just did it — and moreover, the kids weren't teasing Elihu so much as they were issuing death threats
. I don't know the specific verse the oil thing is referring to, but the rest of those entries read like an Atheist Take That
Greatest Hits. Opinions?
: I invoke the power of The Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment
- There's some examples in The Bible that, due to Values Dissonance and other factors, can come across as this.
- One famous example is the story of Abraham. God tells Abraham to kill his own son and offer him as a sacrifice. Abraham goes along with this, but, at the last minute, God tells Abraham it was only a test and he doesn't have to go through with it. The moral of the story is that obeying God is always the right thing to do, regardless of how evil the command seems.
- Dan Simmons nicely treats this issue in his science fiction book Hyperion. One of the characters is a Jewish philosopher and has spent much of his own life thinking about this particular issue. He comes to the conclusion that God wasn't testing Abraham, Abraham was testing God! Basically, Abraham knew that his people needed a god, but he wasn't sure if he could trust this particular God. Abraham knew that no good deity would condone or command human sacrifice, so he resolved to obey the command and possibly sacrifice his own son. He had to be actually willing to do this, because God would have known had it been otherwise. Yet he considers it necessary in order to prove to himself and his people that this god was actually worthy of being the God of the Jews.
- Then there's that scene in Sodom: "No, you can't gangrape my guests! Have my two virgin daughters instead!" No wonder the girls ended up seducing their own father, if that's what their upbringing was like.
- Also, from Mark, "No, don't sell that jar of incredibly valuable ointment and give the money to the poor, use it on me; I'm more important."
- And the scene where Jesus curses a fig tree for not giving him fruit to eat...when it was out of season! This can be quite easily interpreted as "If you don't get what you want, feel free to be petty and vengeful."
- Kings 2:23-24 - if people make fun of you, just ask God to summon bears to rip them to shreds.
: Works for me. We should probably keep our toes out of scragging on religions.
Except Scientology. We can scrag on Scientology.
Thanks, but I'd rather not fling mud at even Acceptable Targets
- Runaways states again and again that no adult is to be trusted, backing this up by, once the characters' parents are gone, the Avengers just dumping the characters in seemingly random foster homes, all of which are lousy environments (pill poppers, too many kids, etc.). Any adult that actually tries to help them is usually used and tossed aside, with a bit of a shrug and "Oh well, he probably would have screwed us over eventually anyway." The "don't trust any adults ever" thing is also a little broken anyway since most of the characters are old enough to practically count as adults anyway, and most of the comic's demographic is in their twenties.
I disagree. At no point in the series does it espouse this moral. The actual
lesson, I'd say, is "Just because they're kids doesn't mean they're helpless"; it's only the ones that condescend to the characters that get karmic backlash.
Rann: Uh, you can disagree all you want, but the point is that the characters actively go around actually saying
"Don't trust adults". (And Spidey didn't condescend, and yet he still got knocked unconscious by one of the group in the middle of buying two of them dinner
.) You can interpret what you want from it, but when the characters say "Don't trust adults" and then adults do something lousy (and out-of-character) to them, there's something being said.
: Cloak & Dagger act perfectly trustworthy; the only reason it doesn't help is that the bad guys get to them first. Like you said, Spider-Man actively helped them and they mistrusted him. There's no pattern here.
Plus, I don't see how the characters "practically count as adults". They're, what, twelve on average?
- How has no one mentioned Runaways yet? "Adults are untrustworthy, and you won't really be happy until you run away from home and become a teenage vigiliante."
...well, if your parents
are secretly supervillains
- The message of A Clockwork Orange (with the famous final chapter that frequently is omitted) seems to be "there's no way to force a criminal to change; the only humane thing to do is bend over, take it, and hope the offender grows out of it." Tell that to the people Alex raped, mugged, and killed.
- This troper always thought the Aesop was that you can't force people to change their nature through behaviorism, and that the state and institutions can be just as brutal as the individual.
- This troper felt the aesop was both "life is unfair" and "wishing can't make it so", as it was made clear that the "cold equations" of science could not be reasoned with, bargained with, or wished away.
...well, yeah; isn't that exactly what the last part said?
That is not what Truth in Television
The ending of Final Fantasy VII, where humans are made extinct and the world goes on without us, shows this scenario as a happy, bucolic result. This can easily be interpreted as "Humans should all die".
Rann: They're not made extinct. At all. Multiple sequels, huge media blitz, ridiculously subjective interpretation anyway. I'm honestly starting to wonder whether the troper pushing this "Everyone dies at the end of FF 7
!" thing on multiple tropes crawled out from under a rock or from under a bridge, it's bordering on Gannon-Banned
levels of ridiculousness.
Conversation in the Main Page
- This Troper has just read "The Tinderbox" out of curiosity and has no idea what to say about it except that that soldier is a Jerkass of the highest order.
Yaguar: I removed the Sweet Home Alabama
example, because it just doesn't fit at all. The point of the movie is that simple, small-town life can be beautiful and appealing. It's All That Glitters
, or be yourself, or some other Stock Aesop
, but there's nothing family unfriendly or morally dissonant about it.
- The Reese Witherspoon flick Sweet Home Alabama has the heroine give up her fabulous, successful and probably high-paying job as a fashion designer and her nice, loving fiance, to stay with her original, trailer trash husband and his pottery shop. And then she has a baby. Yay. There's an enlightened woman for you.
: But is her life actually better
? I can sort of see the downgrade.
Yaguar: Well, obviously she loves the Southern guy better, and pursuing the person you truly love is a Stock Aesop
, not a family unfriendly one. The character seems to be happier in Alabama. The objection seems to be more that she made an odd choice, but there's no reason to say it's obviously a wrong one. The way the entry was written, it sounds like the editor just doesn't want to live in a small town or be a housewife, but there's nothing wrong with either of those things if that is what you want to do with your life. I agree that her choice would be surprising for someone in real life, but the movie is so overloaded with all sorts of Stock Aesop
that you can't really say its overall moral
- Most Discworld novels that feature the Patrician contain the moral that living in a dictatorship isn't so bad, as long as you've got a smart dictator. The populace is obviously too stupid to govern itself.
...This is Ankh-Morpok we're talking about. It's kind of got previous, generally involving rulers who where evil or insane or both. The Patrician, while still a tyrant, is neither. The implication in the books is that if he dies, the city goes straight to hell. In any case, no moral is intended, except maybe "Don't knock it if it works."
: Plus, one of the messages of those books especially is that dictatorship is bad even if
the current ruler is good, because there's no way to guarantee that the next one or the one after that won't be bad. That's why Carrot avoids becoming king.
- If a driving game has real cars in it, the names and likenesses are licensed from the manufacturer(s). Generally, the terms of the license require that the cars be invulnerable, as auto manufacturers don't want people to think their cars get damaged easily. This just happens to promote the idea that dangerous driving has no consequences, but hey, at least our car looks good.
- Which games are these that have this happen? There are lots of games with real cars that don't have it; the Burnout series, for instance, is the complete opposite of this.
- Video game driving is unrealistic no matter how licensed your cars are; it doesn't seek to promote any silly idea like that.
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan
: Cut this Prince of Tennis
example and put it here. This is a Broken Aesop
. "Don't use violence in sports" would be unfriendly in, say, American football, but it would be fine for tennis.
- "Don't use violence in sports" is repeated all over The Prince of Tennis. There are characters punished in different ways for using violence, whether a single individual ( Kippei Tachibana almost left Chitose blind, seriously ponders quitting tennis as a whole and finally spends two years paying his penance for such deeds) or a whole team ( Higa's coach Saotome Harumi instructs his pupils to throw balls at the other coaches and injure them; when they try this against Seigaku, karma bites them in the ass by having Seigaku unmask and beat them in the first National round). This doesn't explain why a Bratty Half-Pint player in the most powerful team of the whole manga/anime, whose abilities relaying heavily on an Unstoppable Rage-like mode, is often given white card about that; in fact, not only does he injure players deliberately and happily when in this mode, but his sempai encourage it sometimes. And until the final matches with Seigaku, they're never punished for their lack of sportmanship.
: Huh. Not confused enough to remove it, or anything, but does the Harry Potter
example really fit here? Even whoever wrote the example seemed to admit that the warped part of the aesop was completely unintentional. Wouldn't it just be a straight Broken Aesop
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan
: Yes, it is a Broken Aesop
. Cut and moved here.
- In one Harry Potter book, the Sorting Hat delivers An Aesop directly on how the houses are supposed to band together. Too, Dumbledore several times tries to impress on Harry that the traits Slytherin prized aren't necessarily negative ones. Of course, when the series ended, there were a grand total of two Slytherins who actually helped the good guys (without wanting something directly in return), the actual aesop winds up being more like "It's okay to discriminate against people, except the rare 'good ones' out of that group you might find." The attempt to patch it back up to the original aesop in the epilogue makes this part Family-Unfriendly Aesop and part Broken Aesop.
- Indeed, almost the whole Slytherin House was evil, despite the Word of God that it was just about ambition (which isn't always a bad thing).
: Moving this one into Broken Aesop
: Moved the Simpsons example into Broken Aesop
, since it was.
: I deleted the example of Dangerous Beauty
, because it ignores that the situations were forced by the culture at the time, and comes across as just complaining about perceived immoral behavior.
- The Vicki Lawrence song "The Night The Lights Went Out In Georgia" (famously covered by Reba McEntire) has the moral "It's okay to let your brother hang for a murder that you committed, because the legal system is crooked anyway."
- In the song, the sister didn't set her brother up to hang. She states that her brother was hung by a crooked sheriff before she could admit to doing it herself.
Well then, it's not an example is it.
- But prostitution is still an honorable way to live as long as it's your own choice, and that's why it's not only legalized, but activly helped by governement here.
- Where is "here"?
- ...okay, but that doesn't have anything to do with the example.
- The Twilight Zone has a particularly famous episode, "Time Enough At Last" (you know, the one starring Burgess Meredith where he breaks his glasses at the end?) that perhaps is famous because of its family unfriendly Aesop/twist ending. Many episodes of Twilight Zone, usually the ones resulting from recycled scripting force a twist ending by simply having the family unfriendly Aesop version of the original episode's end.
Wait, I don't get it. What's the Aesop?
- The pro-torture Aesop is the main reason why 24 has been stoped being aired in this troper's country, as most people thought it can't be used so lightly in a show.
Which country is this?
- Again, Values Dissonance. This Aesop sounds like what we're taught in school. We have of course lessons about how it's important act carefuly enough about strangers (like always telling to an adult where we go), but even more lessons about how it's important to be open and friendly to strangers and not let paranoia drives us.
- This tropper doesn't see anything odd in this example. It's typically the comportment asked of every student here. It's even the basic fonctionnement of our Philosophy lessons... And the last time a teacher slaped a student, it did the first page of media for days, maybe weeks. It sounds more like Values Dissonance.
- This troper would like to point out that "slapped down" is a turn of phrase meaning something like "put in his place" and does not refer to a literal slap. One can see how the confusion might arise as idiom can be very local.
: Was thinking of adding an entry for Secret Diaries Of A Callgirl
, in which the Aesop is something like; prostitution is a fulfilling, glamorous and perfectly safe career, and the only clients are all either nerdy but cute or roguishly handsome.
Conversation in the Main Page
Taken even further in the movie Catch That Kid (a remake of the Danish film Klatretøsen): the 12-year old "heroine's" father is suddenly paralyzed and his only hope is an extremely expensive experimental procedure (not covered by health insurance, obviously). What is her plan? Rob the bank her mother designed the security system for.. The movie tries to cushion the glorification of this scheme by having the protagonists caught, only to have the heroine's mother claim it was part of a test of the aforementioned security system, which causes the story to be broadcast on TV, flooding the family with donations for the father's procedure, yet has the protagonist not suffer any consequences whatsoever for the fact that she tried to rob a bank. So Yeah. Ends justify the means, kids. Remember that.
'The ends justify the means' may be An Aesop
sitting a little further down the Sliding Scale of Idealism vs. Cynicism
than most, but I don't think it's inherantly Family Unfriendly at all, especially not in the above case.
: There's still the little fact that it's a children's movie!
Furthermore, you can easily replace the "ends justify the means" subtext with "crime has no consequences as long as it's done for the right cause" or even better "When banker are jerks, robbing their banks is justified. It's not like when you rob a bank the people who have accounts in said bank
are affected or anything! People who might be as much in dire straights as you!"
: The Sword of Truth
series fall under Moral Dissonance
, not Family-Unfriendly Aesop
- The book Naked Empire by Terry Goodkind, part of his Sword of Truth series, has one moral: as long as you're one of the Good Guys, it's okay to do horrible things to the Bad Guys, such as slaughtering unarmed peace protesters who get in your way. Other books featuring kicking an eight-year old in the face, forcing a rapist to eat his own genitals, murdering an eight-months pregnant woman on the assumption she's an enemy (without a second thought or pausing to her a defense), torturing a captive to death after he's given you the information you demanded...
- I'm tempted to defend the "make the rapist eat his own genitals" bit, especially since it's established in the book that the rapist is also a pedophile, a Dragon, and a scumbag who will frame innocents for his own crimes. Demmin Nass deserved everything Kahlan did to him, even if her approach to making the punishment fit the crime isn't exactly family-friendly (or safe for work).
- The eight-year-old who got her teeth kicked off was at the moment before the kicking torturing the person who would kick her and telling him that when the love of his life would be found, she'd be raped, tortured and killed. If that doesn't give the right to self-defence, what does?
- Because it's still a grown man kicking a small child in the face, which makes her bite off her own tongue. Terry Goodkind is seriously sick, and the whole sequence was probably him taking vicarious revenge on all the girls who were mean to him in elementary school. Seriously, how can you even justify that? I've said a lot of mean things in my life, but that doesn't give you the right to kick my goddamn face in.
: Cut because there is no
Aesop in "The Runaway." The point is neither to teach a lesson that "scamming is wrong" nor "lighten up and have fun." It's just portraying characters doing what they do
- "The Runaway" has Toph scamming a bunch of people (all of which but the first were innocent) out of their money (keep in mind she's one of the good guys), and when Katara legitimately complains about this, she's portrayed as a bossy person who doesn't want to have fun. When she does give in due to peer pressure, the plan backfires, but Toph still gets away with all of the money she scammed. However, this may be more of a case of Refuge in Audacity.
- Katara wasn't so great herself even without her "horrible" motherliness, because she only ever complained about Toph's bad behavior, despite Sokka and Aang tagging along with her for every scam and Aang giving Katara an Avatar promise and proceeding to happily break it.
- To be fair to Toph, the possibility of these people being completely innocent or not cheating in the slightest is left ambiguous at best as Toph justifies her actions by saying cheating cheaters is okay much like Katara justifys stealing is okay as long as its from pirates.
: I think we should pull the Star Tre K The Next Generation
example for "Up The Long Ladder", or at least change it to read: "When facing a genetic bottleneck, you might have to abandon your traditions and adopt unconventional mating policies, at least in the short term."
- In the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Up the Long Ladder," the moral of the story seems to be "act like a slut and have lots of babies with lots of different people even if you really, really don't want to."
- There was no moral. That was just a solution to a population problem.
- Agreed. Simple biology; if you want to widen the gene pool of a limited population you need to create as many different combinations as possible. Admittedly the cultural and emotional aspects of this solution are not explored.
This isn't really the Aesop of the show, especially since half the episode is devoted to the other plot, and this is only brought up near the end.
If it's listed as Values Dissonance
, it doesn't need to appear here. :p
- This troper believes this Trope should be divided into two different Aesops. Because some of the examples are not necessarily bad lessons but with a cynical view and others are downright wrong in idea and conception while not contradicting what was already done or future actions (ie, Broken Aesop)
: Just an aside, but whoever wrote "Computer, delete that entire trope example" under 'in the pale moonlight' is my personal hero
's strongly tempted to remove Butterfly Effect
and whatever sub-items it spawns under the charged that, really, it has no Aesop other than a Fantastic Aesop
(if it has any), and it is not family unfriendly at all. Any complaints?
: Sorry for being a bugger, but... Finding Nemo
?! None of those "morals" are morals at all! They're simply plot points — some, not even that —, but the moral of the movie is... well, something about overcoming your fears and letting your kids grow up.
Isn't there another trope for "not actually aesops that are quite questionable"?
: We created an article about just that. Warp That Aesop
: Um...does "Arranged Marriage
is bad" actually count as a Family-Unfriendly Aesop
? Yes, it's part of a culture older than idiot Americans, but the arguments used to defend it could rather easily be turned to footbinding without even leaving the culture...or by leaving the culture, FGM.
: I don't know about you, but I surely think Arranged Marriage
is not good, for a couple of reasons. Using the "older is better" argument is a well known logic fallacy
. So, no, it isn't a Family-Unfriendly Aesop
: something I'd like to point out about the example from DS 9
was that Sisko seemed to go to far on purpose. Eddington saw himself as the hero fighting against injustice and all, I think Les Miserable came up. Sisko thought by increasingly taking on the role of the villain Eddington would surrender because the hero proves himself better by givin up rather than let evil go on. Also Eddington "wins" because he is willing to sacrifice himself rather than let Sisko get worse. It looks a lot like Sisko is the realist while Eddington was the genre savvy idealist, so Sisko changes the story to one where the "hero" has to be morally superior.
: I know this is all a bit subjective, but I really don't think this belongs here:
- In Mrs Doubtfire, Robin Williams' character quits a voice-acting job because he feels that the cartoon promotes smoking to children, and his morals won't let him voice the character. This is treated with derision by both his daughter and wife, and as just another facet of his irresponsibility; in fact, his wife divorces him immediately thereafter, tying the two together. The aesop: "If you don't compromise your morality and integrity, you'll lose your family."
Considering that the divorce is at the beginning of the movie, and they become at least somewhat friendly by the end, this doesn't really seem like an Aesop to be learned; more just a case of the character's hard luck. In fact, IIRC, the ex-wife ends up with a rich, successful Jerkass
, and ends up dumping him by the end of the film, which makes the aesop more hers to experience: "Love beats money any day".
Conversation in the Main Page
- Of course, taking candy from strangers is itself fairly safe. The incidence of serial killers and kidnappers is vanishingly small; it's just that they get so much media play when they do happen that everyone is paranoid about them.
- Taking candy is fine. It's eating it that's bad. If a serial killer is trying to get his jollies by making you cut your tongue out, have a razor blade in your Mars bars sounds like a good idea.
- Um, why take candy if you're not gonna eat it?
- So you can protect yourself from serial killers who put razor blades in candy.
From the 102 Dalmatians
- Never seen it myself, but this sounds more like an example of "you can't force people to change if they don't want to" - maybe not the most cheerful of Aesops, but not by any means a Family-Unfriendly Aesop.
This is why you should
see things first. `` (Though I wouldn't want to convince anyone
to see 102 Dalmatians
Also, setting up a Troper Tales
page: Family-Unfriendly Aesop
- On The Daily Show:
Jon Stewart: (Paraphrased) "Listen, kids. Being the Illinois governor is a dead end. You are more likely to go to jail for being Illinois' governor then you are if you COMMIT MURDER. So make the right choice. Don't be the Illinois Governor. Kill people instead."
Totally a Spoof Aesop
, as somewhat unclearly talked about in the second paragraph. The very next part of that bit was Jon lampshading the false dichtomy (something like "by the way, those are
your only two options).
Dragon Quest Z
: Deleting this Natter
. Although in response to the last part, he didn't actually grow up. Why do you think he keeps breaking up marriages with mature, kindhearted woman (save for the Fantastic Four
marriage, which was probably more due to Grandfather Clause
than him actually liking it)?
- Should be noted that quite a common Aesop in Deal with the Devil stories is "It's OK if done for unselfish ends." Goethe's Faust Being the most famous example.
- But Faust did the deal with Mephistoles for selfish reasons and even forgot his goals, to find out "what keeps the world together on the inside", as soon as he got affected by the youth cure. The only reason Faust didn't ended up in Hell and as Mephistos servant was because God doesn't plays games with the Devil and that everyone can be saved by God when he sees something worth saving in you. It's all in Faust II.
- Plus Peter's reason was to bring back his aunt, and the whole story was the selfish enforcing of Peter's youth. Also, on the off-chance that Joe Quesada is reading this, YOU grew up! Let Spidey do it too, damn it!
Anaheyla: Point of interest. Katara was accused of bringing us the "aesop" that it was ok to hurt people as long as you're really mad at someone.
It was deleted with the following claim:
"Uh, noooo, not an aesop. Even heroes get cut some slack when they're facing off against people that murdered (or they think murdered) family members. And, um... the "random mook" WAS the guy who killed her mother. And she still didn't kill him. So, yeah."
I'd just like to question a point here.
Even heroes get cut some slack when they're facing off against people that murdered (or they think murdered) family members.
How is the idea that "it's only ok to steal from pirates" a FUFA and the idea that "It's ok to hurt people who hurt a member of your family" not?
And, um... the "random mook" WAS the guy who killed her mother.
Maybe my memory is wrong but I distinctly remember her using bloodbending on a random mook who she assumed to be the guilty party. Further inspection on her part revealed the victim of the bloodbending to not be said guilty party, who had, in fact, retired and was living with his mother.
Did she kill either of them? No. But she used the ultimately evil bloodbending that she swore she would never use. But hey, she thought they killed her mother so that makes it ok right? Right? Seems like a Family-Unfriendly Aesop
Laota: Okay, the whole Buffy the Vampire Slayer
example of "Gingerbread" had to go, as the person who wrote it clearly wasn't paying attention:
- One of the Aesops of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode "Gingerbread" seems to be that the death of a child should not be treated as if it is worse or means more than the death of anyone else just because it's a child. In one scene Buffy points out the hypocrisy in all of Sunnydale freaking out over the apparent murder of two children when adults die there all the time and no one notices, and in the end it turns out that the "children" were really a demon taking advantage of adults' weakness towards "sweet" and "innocent" little kids in order to brainwash them into sacrificing their own children. Not a bad moral, but one that is fairly rare and surprising to see given that so many shows use kids in danger as a cheap way to manipulate the audience's emotions.
Laota: Other tropers then continued to rant about how flawed and ironic it was that they'd have an Aesop like that, given future episodes. But this is part of the episode isn't about hypocrisy
, nor is it an Aesop! Buffy is simply taken aback and "fighting an overwhelming sense of foreboding" at how the equally recent and gruesome murders of others, such as "Mr. Sanderson from the bank" never cause so much as a raised eyebrow from the moral guardians, let alone a hysterical Witch Hunt
. It's that she knows something bad
is about to happen, not that she thinks one death should be treated equally to another.
SSJ Dk Crew: I'm on the verge of just editing this out right away, but I saw this...
"Futurama: The Beast with a Billion Backs has Bender delivering a direct Aesop at the end: that romantic love is something that can only exist between two people. So, what about the few-but-existing people in the world who are actually polyamorous, i.e. in love with two or more people at the same time? And since there are no gay relationships shown on Futurama, that edges somewhat close to "romantic love can only exist between one man and one woman"."
How exactly are either of those morals family-unfriendly? Sure, they may not be politically correct, and it might not be wise to recite them if you plan to run for office; at least under one political party, but scientifically, homosexual couples are incapable of physically producing families. Furthermore, polyamorous behavior is legendary for messing up otherwise-awesome relationships. Arthur and Gwenevere, Zeus and Hera, Roger and Jessica Rabbit (sorta.)
That message is a little adult, but it seems very much in keeping with the whole "stable family" concept seen in other family-based fiction, all the way from Full House and the Brady Bunch through the Incredibles and the Addams Family.
: Well, it is unfriendly to countless individual families—I'd hate to see children taking to heart the Aesop
that their parents' love for each other was fake or illegitimate. This page isn't about Bad Aesops, though, just ones that aren't culturally sanctioned. Unfortunately this one is.
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan
: Cut this and put it here for now. The Aesop is probably "No matter how much more you deserve it, if you go about getting it in the wrong way, it won't be worth it."
- This troper remembers one episode in particular, "Hannah In The Street With Diamonds," that had a Family-Unfriendly Aesop. The plot of the episode was that Miley/Hannah was pissed about the position of her diamond in a fictional Walk of Fame being a spot where people spit and drop chili, as opposed to the relatively-unharmed diamond for Pancake Buffalo, the star of the walk's organizer's favorite childhood show. So what do Hannah and her friends do? They publicly humiliate the organizer, Oliver disguised as a security guard, and not only are they not arrested, but Robbie Ray doesn't even find out so Hannah can't even get Easily Forgiven for it.
- One of the things mentioned is that Pancake stole the spot, and if you want to add how Ax-Crazy Pancake's performer is, addled with how obsessive the organizer is, she is fair in doing so. Also, I think she learned her lesson when her new spot is dribbled on just the same. Plus, Oliver probably got away with it since it was his mother's uniform. And before you complain, the Uncle Earl episode had him try to disguise himself as Ozzy Osbourne.
Took out this:
- Chocolat has also a Family-Unfriendly Aesop with what the main character's mother did, taking away with her daughter one night and leaving the poor befuddled husband behind, which basically screams 'A woman can do whatever she wants with the kid, because Mother Always Knows Best', which basically makes the movie unwatchable for this troper. Oh, and always speaking about the main character's parents, there's the 'love doesn't mean anything, only personal self-fulfillment does' Aesop.
actually makes a point of showing that taking off with your child and roving around the countryside, even if it was acceptable in the culture you came from, will make the child miserable and screw her up if only due to Values Dissonance
- Vianne outright states that Anouk hates the way they live, and it's not too big a leap to see that she knows that because she hated it too.
- A character in The Skull of Truth tells the story of three brothers, "Do-What-You-Should," "Do-What-You're-Told," and "Do-What-You-Love," each of whom, throughout life, did just that; all three get to heaven, but the first two are too exhausted by life to enjoy it. So Yeah. The presence of the eponymous macguffin implies that, within the context of the book, the cosmos itself supports this Family-Unfriendly Aesop.
...I don't get it, why is this Unfriendly? Sure, you could interpret this as encouraging mindless hedonism, but I think the intended message was "enjoy life". And since when is doing only what you "should" or "What you're told" is considered a good thing? I can think of several examples around the wiki where absolute conformity is itself considered a Family-Unfriendly Aesop
If you see fit to add it again, please explain your reasons here.
Dark Angel Cryo: removing this:
- The moral of Miley Cyrus's song "7 Things" is that you should stick with your boyfriend if you absolutely hate everything about him aside from his hair and eyes, his old jeans, being hypnotized when he kisses, and sentimental feelings about laughing, crying, and holding his hand. His vanity, games, insecurity, and unfaithfulness are qualities she hates, but is willing to overlook because of the aforementioned things she likes about him, and it's implied that his vanity, etc. also make her love him.
because "7 things is from all appearances a breakup song (look at the lyrics 
and the video 
. The last minute of the song may qualify it as a broken aesop, but it still seems to be saying that she isn't putting up with that stuff anymore.
- Many critics found the message in the Powerpuff Girls movie to be very xenophobic; the mutated monkey Mojo Jojo is helped by the Powerpuffs, despite his menacing appearance. He then goes on to try and take over the world. The moral here seems to be "if somebody looks evil, they are evil" — the exact opposite of what is usually taught in children's shows.
- The Powerpuff movie is a prequel to the series, so Mojo Jojo being evil is a HUGE You Should Know This Already. The movie isn't being xenophobic, Mojo's just in-character. If Lex Luthor pulls this shit in a Superman prequel movie, said movie isn't displaying a phobia of bald people.
: After thinking it over, I can see why someone might see this Aesop (since the people of Townsville had to learn to accept the girls and not fear their "special-ness," as they call it. However, I never saw Mojo having anything to do with that. The girls never think afterwards that they shouldn't have trusted him because of how he looked; Mojo making that comparison between himself and the girls was just him being a Manipulativ Bastard
. Like the response says, every villain does not send the message that someone with their traits is evil.
Bradley: Will whoever cut the Family Guy
examples please explain why they did it?
To whomever wrote the entry for Happy Feet regarding the dropped egg narration - what the hell is that supposed to be about? I'm a little irritated that I am 'hopeless' for not getting your vaguely worded nonsense. If you can't be bothered to explain it fully, don't bother editing it in, huh?
I am not sure if some of the examples for Jack Chick
are family unfriendly aesops. The idea that regardless of how good or bad one is the only way to get to heaven is to believe in God (known as sola fide) is theoritically a very important part of Protestantism. According to The Other Wiki
it is one of the main differences between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. So, can it really be a Family-Unfriendly Aesop
when a good percentage of the world believes that it is true?