Follow TV Tropes
Can we insert Hyde for Magnificent Bastard? After all, he tricks Jekyll into letting him out permanently, and then, in season 6, seems to be completely manipulating Emma.
So, after 5 seasons, I gotta ask: Does Once ever run into The Chris Carter Effect? We know that so many questions about the show aren't going to be answered (Like whatever happened to King George after season 2), but at the same time, some more essential questions are answered along the way. So do you think the show has this effect working against it, or is it effect free for the moment?
The only plot points I can think of is how Will Scarlett suddenly ended up back in Storybrooke - unless the events in Wonderland chronologically take place after Season 4. But the major one is the Camelot characters in Season 5. Guinevere is still under a mind control spell, Lancelot is unaccounted for and Merida still doesn't know the truth. Granted we'll have to wait until the protagonists return from the Underworld to see if they wrap that thread up.
I should clarify first that I've only watched the first 16 episodes of Season 2 so far, but this entry doesn't jar with what I've seen. To avoid natter, I'm raising it here.
The shocked reactions to Mulan's Samus Is a Girl moments aren't nearly as heavy handed as implied, mostly because, at least so far, its only happened twice, by Aurora and by the thugs harassing Belle, and it was less 'what, a female warrior?' and more 'what, the warrior who's armour and helmet completely masked their gender and looks male is actually not a male?'. They don't make any comments that indicate Mulan can't be a warrior, they're just caught off guard by the reveal that the male-looking figure is a female.
I'd also go into the issues with the 'no sexism in the Enchanted Forest' thing, but I don't really need to. This moment just isn't anvilicious because they're not making a point to be anvilicious about. Hell, the most it seems to be doing is a Mythology Gag nodding towards the fact Mulan disguised herself as a woman.
I'm the one who put that entry in there. Aurora doesn't just express surprise that it's a woman, but she does a complete double take and says "you're a girl?" - implying that the idea of a female warrior is shocking. She's also shocked that Philip has been travelling with her - "with a woman?". Granted that could be her panicking about her fiancee travelling with another woman. But the episode with Belle and Mulan felt really heavy handed to me, because there are suddenly a bunch of sexist dudes who act as if the very idea of women being warriors is ridiculous. It's Anvilicious to me because the Enchanted Forest has never been established as a particularly sexist nation. There are plenty of women who are power-players there, and no other female characters ever face that kind of condescension because of their gender.
Take Snow in the second ep of Season 3 for example. The people underestimate her because they saw her get one-upped by Regina. That conflict isn't Anvilicious because there's a good justification for it. But with Mulan, the writers pull sexism out of thin air when it's not established in-universe. They put that conflict in the episode so they can deliver a girl power lesson. In that episode, the only reason Mulan and Belle are underestimated is because of their gender - when plenty of other episodes show women in positions of power and in combat. The episodes dealing with the Ogre War implies that females were sent to fight on the front lines too. So gender segregation has not been established as a thing in the Enchanted Forest. Therefore there's no real reason for a random group of people to be shocked at a female warrior - other than so the writers can deliver a girl power message. But hey, that's why this trope is subjective. Not everyone's going to see it that way.
(Wicked Witch of the West)
So then. Keeping in mind that the Moral Event Horizon can only be crossed once, what is the first, worst crime Regina et al committed? Discuss.
People can disagree on which moment is th Moral Event Horizon, so more than one can be listed.
That completely defeats the point of specifying that the character can only cross it once. Listing every bad thing a character's ever done and saying "Oh well, everyone has a different idea of which one was worse" is a cop-out.
Yes, and people will disagree where it is crossed. Completely different thing than "crossed multiple times". You can specify "Moral Event Horizon: There are several candidates for Character X: [Subbullets listing the moments]".
Regina , Rumplestiltskin , and Hook shouldn't be up there in the first place. It is not "that villain that I hate", it's "that villain is has not one single little not-evil quality to them and makes every other comparable villain in the story look less evil just by their presence." Moral Event Horizon is the point where redemption short of death is an impossibility, and these guys don't count because they have been presented as redeemable without the need for such extremes.
For Zelena, just use that last bullet. Sacrificing a baby for anything is always a good MEH. In fact, since that baby is needed for her to go back in time and unmake reality to be raised by Corra, you can just fuse the last 2 bullets together.
Methinks you are confusing the trope with Complete Monster. Moral Event Horizon is "this action indicates that the villain is irredeemably evil".
No, I'm not confusing anything. We're actually saying the same thing now. Regina , Rumplestiltskin , and Hook have not done anything that painted them as irredeemably evil so they should not be listed here.
"that villain is has not one single little not-evil quality to them and makes every other comparable villain in the story look less evil just by their presence." has nothing to do with Moral Event Horizon and all to do with Complete Monster.
Anyhow, since Moral Event Horizon doesn't have a repair effort, its examples work under standard YMMV rules and thus a mere opinion disagreement is not a reason for removal.
You're still misreading me, but I'm going to drop this if that's how the conversation is going to play out.
I'm not arguing that what Rumple did was a Jerkass move but calling it a Moral Event Horizon is a little harsh. Given the Trauma Conga Line Zelena put Rumple through, lying to Belle about killing Zelena more qualifies as Kick the Dog. It's not like he lied to her to kill an innocent person or for his own selfish purposes. He was trying to avenge his son. I agree he shouldn't have killed her, but it doesn't make him irredeemable.
Please read the main page!
"The Creator's Pet is a combination of being:
Unless it meets all of these criteria, it doesn't fit."
Let's see about Regina:
Hated by fans
She's a Base Breaker but not universally hated
Loved (or worshipped) by the writers:
I don't know
Put into big scenes for no reason:
Nope she's one of the main characters
Talked up by the other characters:
Nope, she's hated by the town even after her Heel–Face Turn
Then I don't see how is she a Creator's Pet
Amusingly, the example itself comments that Regina is "one of the fandom's most favorite characters", which lends further weight to the argument she doesn't count.
Would you say this work has the Howitz producers in the middle of a Tough Act to Follow with this show following on their crazy Noighnties Drama Lost? Or has the show managed to step outside of that show's shadow if only because it's premise is a bit more coherent?
Is there a reason any mention of Swan Queen gets erased from the page? It's a popular ship. Surely mentioning it on the page is necessary.
I cut this. I'm not sure if it applies.
Despite the fact that she was a child, she was a prisoner of war and Rumple didn't start threatening her until she alluded to the prophecy that would leave his son fatherless. He misinterpreted and thought she meant that he was going to die. At the time, he didn't fully believe her and thought she was trying to scare him. It's not like he lashed out at her for no reason. While it's not an excuse, freaking out upon hearing bad news of that magnitude is hardly a sign by itself that he's an irredeemable monster.
Besides, given that she was gone by the next time he tried to get clarification, wouldn't that imply that she had the upper hand?
I'm trying to remember a time when the Charmings' allies believed this. In season one, Snow and Chrarming made their allies by helping them with their problems. (Abigail with Fredrick, Red with the wolf, ect.). So when Snow and Charming needed help it only made sense that their allies helped them out. We just see more of the latter because as main characters we mostly saw the conflict of the Charmings and Emma. Also, Snow and Charming needed more help. It wasn't that their allies saw them as the most important thing ever.
I've just cut this whole section:
Canon Sue: * Canon Sue: One of the unfortunate pitfalls when you're re-inventing the classic Fairy Tales.
Since the entry seems to be more about how none of the characters are actually Sues (which makes sense given the definition) I'm not sure why it needed to be there at all.
As much as this is YMMV, can we add to YMMV about Henry being a Canon Sue? I mean, he set the plot into motion, tried to keep emma on the straight and narrow path, can be rather mean at times while getting apologies from everyone, as well as kinda well, I don't know, UNITING THE VILLAINS AND HEROES AT THE END OF SEASON 2 WHEN THEY'D BEEN ENEMIES OR ANTAGONISTS BEFORE THEN? A little Suey all things considered.
I don't think Henry's a Sue at all. He's a ten-year-old boy. He's precocious for his age, but he can also be passive-aggressive when he's upset and slow to forgive. The last two are a bit immature, but it would be odd not to see immaturity in a ten-year-old. He's a child, after all. As for uniting everyone, that made perfect sense, too. He's related to them all. He's Regina and Emma's son. He's also Charming, Snow and Gold's grandson. (Although in Gold's case, he mostly joined the union in honor of Neal's memory). Henry can't control who's he's related to.
I also don't think any of the above are Sues.
Can we add Regina herself to Base Breaker and/or The Scrappy? It seems like everyone (especially on Television Without Pity forums) hates her, deems her the Creator's Pet, and believe her to be a Complete Monster.
Base breaker makes more sense to me. A lot of tumblr seems to really like her.
I don't know if this one counts. Cora, Regina's mother had been presented as a legitimate threat to everybody in Storybrook. Henry, especially, would be a target. It made sense to get him out of the line of fire. It wasn't about the rights of one parent over the other. Regina already knew that Cora was back and Archie was still alive. Anyway, with Regina in hiding, there wasn't a way to contact her. Besides, it was revealed in a previous episode that Snow has gone through the wringer trying to redeem Regina when Snow won her throne back. It's very understandable that Snow didn't have the patience for much more.
I'm going to side with EMY 3 K on this. I never liked the way this series portrayed adoption. I thought it was wildly inappropriate that Snow (Henry's TEACHER) and Archie (a therapist who should have known better) helped/encouraged Emma to hang around. If they weren't cursed fairy tale characters, it would have awful. It was part of the reason I had mixed feelings about Season 1.
However... Regina shouldn't have been given custody of Henry in the first place. Yes, she loves him. Yes, her back story is miserable and she is to be pitied rather than hated. Yes, the adoptive mother should have NO rights. But no, Regina is not a fit parent.
She's shown repeatedly to be incapable of giving Henry the emotional support he needs. He would have grown up being the ONLY PERSON IN STORYBROOKE WHO WAS AGING. There was no way that would have ended well. Regina lost custody of Henry when one of her convoluted plans nearly got him killed. Ignoring what she did in the fairy tale world... she still MURDERED Graham, plotted to murder Katherine and tried to poison Emma. She shouldn't be allowed anywhere near Henry.
You could argue that the series portrayal of adoptive/biological parents is unfortunate though...Emma=good guy, Regina=bad guy.
I suppose that this is the great wrangling that the show's gonna have to work out: somehow, they're gonna try to get to a point about how both parents can be fit, and some kind of "shared custody" arrangement's gonna be hammered out. Eddie and Adam admitted that this is a problem with the show at Pallyfest 2013, but said that apparently, their only saving grace away from a totally negative portrayal on adoption is Pinocchio and Gepetto. Now if only we could see HIS backstory where he comes to life to confirm this.
Is it just me or is the Moral Event Horizon particularly nattery? Isn't supposed to be one act that pushes the character into the irredeemably evil section?
Which is a little odd, because the show tends to act like there IS no Moral Event Horizon and that no character is irredeemably evil.
Hmm, that's why it's YMMV. The fans might declare one of these characters without hope, but within the show itself, there will always be someone who still believes in them. That's the nature of fairy tales after all.
"There IS no Moral Event Horizon and no character is irredeemably evil" got thrown out the window by Peter Pan.
Though I agree that we should watch what gets called a Moral Event Horizon moment. Especially when we got an action by the Blue Fairy labeled as this, even though the trope by definition is "crossing the line and never coming back", whereas Blue DID come back by making amends with Tink in the end and expressing regret for being such a Jerkass.
Also, it's now really unlikely that any of Hook's actions can be called crossing the Moral Event Horizon, since he's easily the most redeemable of the major villains.
I partly agree, partly disagree.
Pan seems to be the first irredeemably evil villain (in terms of major characters) on the show, but he was unique in having no guilt/remorse for his actions.
Regina, Rumpel, and Cora all exhibit guilt/remorse, but all also committed deeds that would qualify for Moral Event Horizon.
Which is why I think the term "irredeemably evil" can be confusing. Those characters have more in the bad side of the ledger than the good side, but after crossing the line, do "come back" to some degree.
As Rumpel suggested and Regina agreed, the Moral Event Horizon means "they've (probably) done too much bad to get a happy ending", but I'd have a hard time calling them irredeemable.
As for Hook, his attempt to kill Belle was a big Kick the Dog moment, but he's definitely redeemed himself to a significant degree since then.
When does Cora express remorse? From what I've seen, she's pretty much a legitimate Complete Monster whenever she appears.
Community Showcase More