Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Main / LostAesop

Go To

OR

Added: 1201

Changed: 739

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* ''WesternAnimation/{{Arthur}}'': "Buster's Dino Dilemma" sees Buster taking an interest in dinosaurs. When the class goes to a dig site to look for fossils, they are told that they can't take anything with them. Buster is offended and smuggles the fossil under his hat. This bothers Buster, as he [[MyGodWhatHaveIDone feels guilty]] about stealing, which makes it seem like the moral is not to steal. When he caves in and gives it back, however, he gets ''rewarded'' with the park ranger calling him a "genius" and displaying his fossil with a nameplate saying he discovered it. As such, it's hard to tell if it was a [[BrokenAesop broken]] anti-stealing Aesop, an Aesop about how telling the truth doesn't always affect you negatively, or if there wasn't even any Aesop.

to:

* ''WesternAnimation/{{Arthur}}'': ''WesternAnimation/{{Arthur}}'':
**
"Buster's Dino Dilemma" sees Buster taking an interest in dinosaurs. When the class goes to a dig site to look for fossils, they are told that they can't take anything with them. Buster is offended and smuggles the fossil under his hat. This bothers Buster, as he [[MyGodWhatHaveIDone feels guilty]] about stealing, which makes it seem like the moral is not to steal. When he caves in and gives it back, however, he gets ''rewarded'' with the park ranger calling him a "genius" and displaying his fossil with a nameplate saying he discovered it. As such, it's hard to tell if it was a [[BrokenAesop broken]] anti-stealing Aesop, an Aesop about how telling the truth doesn't always affect you negatively, or if there wasn't even any Aesop.Aesop.
** In-universe in "D.W., Queen of the Comeback". Mrs. [=MacGrady=] uses an Indian fable telling about the dangers of seeking revenge, that needing to get the last word in can only harm you. Since the story gets cut off before the lesson can be explained, D.W. interprets it at its most literal: "keep the stick in your mouth when you're flying with geese". She then meets the characters from the fable in a dream that night and realizes what the true moral is.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
It's not about any of that, it's pretty much just a condemnation of show business and how it's built on the objectification and abuse of women. It's not a hard Aesop to grasp at all: Verhoeven isn't known for his subtlety.


* ''Film/{{Showgirls}}'' seems to be trying to prove ''something'' but neither the viewers or the movie itself seem to grasp just what that message is. At first it may seem like it's trying to say that a person should never compromise their morals, where Nomi is shown refusing to put ice cubes on her breasts to make her nipples stand up and refuses to do something that's implied to be prostitution... But this would only work if the character were a legitimate [[HookerWithAHeartOfGold Stripper With a Heart of Gold]], in that stripping was the worst thing she did. She had no problems pushing the lead dancer down the stairs to injure her, sleeping with her boss to get higher in the position to be said dancer's understudy. She seemed to be very happy with the idea of doing ''extremely'' graphic things on the stage of the old strip club. So "don't compromise your morals" can't work because the character's morals are borderline psychotic. Her interactions with other characters seem to indicate that the message is something about how Nomi really ''is'' a bad person at heart, that Cristal was right and Nomi really was a whore, who while at first denied it, began to accept it willingly or not. But then every other character in the entire movie acts as if Nomi is an absolute saint, no matter what she does. Even the girl she pushed down the stairs calls her a whore as if it were a compliment.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* ''VideoGame/FateGrandOrder'': The Tunguska Sanctuary event tries to have some kind of Aesop about nature and humanity, but what the message is gets lost by the end. It seems to be trying to say HumansAreFlawed and cause destruction, complete with overt [[AllegoricalCharacter allegorical monsters]] that are basically walking and living guns, but the BigBad of the chapter is revealed to have actually been born from all the animals that died during the Tunguska incident, which is something even in the ''Fate'' universe that had nothing to do with humans, and was just a freak accident. Due to this, and the BigBad being a cruel and harsh threat to humanity while acknowledging that humans weren't responsible for the Tunguska incident, the intended message goes from HumansAreFlawed to some kind of confused and unclear attempt at saying "HumansAreFlawed but are part of nature" message, before getting lost in the attempt to resolve the conflict.

to:

* ''VideoGame/FateGrandOrder'': The Tunguska Sanctuary event tries to have some kind of Aesop about nature and humanity, but what the message is gets lost by the end. It initially seems to be trying to say saying HumansAreFlawed and cause destruction, and should be more caring to nature, complete with overt [[AllegoricalCharacter allegorical monsters]] that are basically walking and living guns, but the BigBad of the chapter is revealed to have actually been born from all the animals that died during the Tunguska incident, which is something even in the ''Fate'' universe that had nothing to do with humans, and was just a freak accident.accident caused seemingly by a meteor entering the atmosphere near the area. Due to this, and the BigBad being a cruel and harsh threat to humanity while acknowledging that humans weren't responsible for the Tunguska incident, the intended message goes from HumansAreFlawed to some kind of confused and unclear attempt at saying "HumansAreFlawed but are part of nature" message, before getting lost in the attempt to resolve the conflict.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Because the Marvel ''ComicBook/CivilWar2006'' crossover was written by multiple authors, most of whom didn't agree with the direction Marvel was going, the moral behind the story seems to jump from book to book. One of the reasons for it is that while the entire conflict ostensibly hinged around being for and against a broad SuperRegistrationAct, none of the writers were on on board with what said act even entailed (some writers believed it called for mere bureaucratic registration for heroes to tie their identities to the government, but some writers thought it was about {{conscription}} and militarization) which isn't exactly conducive to a stable, comprehensive moral direction.

to:

* Because the Marvel ''ComicBook/CivilWar2006'' crossover was written by multiple authors, most of whom didn't agree with the direction Marvel was going, the moral behind the story seems to jump from book to book. One of the reasons for it is that while the entire conflict ostensibly hinged around being for and against a broad SuperRegistrationAct, none of the writers were on on board with what said act even entailed (some writers believed it called for mere bureaucratic registration for heroes to tie their identities to the government, but some writers thought it was about {{conscription}} and militarization) which isn't exactly conducive to a stable, comprehensive moral direction.

Top