 |
Lonelygirl15
Forum to post messages about Bree and Danielbeast
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TheeBerean
Lonely Fan
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 192
|
 Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 4:07 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Renegade wrote: | That does not change my point. If you read my original post, you'll see that I complained about the missing story coherence there, too. The contrast to law and order shows is just a good example.
Independent from how stupid, unnecessary and graphic the abduction was, Daniel kidnapping teenage girls just doesn't fit the way he was written so far, and whoever wrote him that way for this episode should take some extra classes in continuity.
Had he gradually turned bad, fine. Had the Order "triggered" him, fine.
But kidnapping children out of the blue, just because Bree says so? I don't buy it. |
Very well articulated, Renegade. Milowent, your list also brings out a good point. However, there is one key difference in this video than in all of the others: the way the Creators decided to display it.
In all of the above mentioned scenarios, most of the events were talked about rather than shone. Or if they were shone, it was usually pretty tasteful. When Bree's dad was shot, we saw what happened and the camera techniques used emphasized the fear and sudden chaos of the situation. You didn't see him rolling around on the ground in agony with his guts hanging out.
If the Creators wanted a kidnapping to occur it could have been handled so much better. The use of graphic images was simply unneccessary and was totally unjustified by the storyline. (Great examples were posted by Renegade... and I'm sure I could find a few more to rival it). Yes, you could probably find worse on another show or movie, but this is in specific reference to LG15. This is why I say the video crossed a moral line.
| Renegade wrote: | | And that'll be the worst about it...that they just go kidnap a girl, and everything will be fine in the end. No cops, no judge, no prison. "Thanks for kidnapping me, let's be friends." |
This is where the filmsy story vehicle come into play. Where do they go from here? If this is the resolution we get, can anyone imagine anything less creative or unsatisfying?
Honestly, in the end... if it weren't for images like the ones above and those by Renegade... I wouldn't be taking the time to post here... I would have just thought "Geeze... what a bonehead move" and gone on... this is different.
~tb
_________________
The Flock is being Misled. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sack36
Devoted Fan
Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 549
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Being a new poster, I suppose I really don't have much of a say. But I feel drawn to mention the difference in the writing style. It reminds me of the very first Star Trek comic book. The characters aren't recognizable. Jonas has never been the voice of reason. He has always been the hothead. Daniel has always been the voice of reason, and always been the cautious one. Bree has always looked to Daniel for guidance.
When the Star Trek Comic book came out, Sulu was portrayed as a huge strapping black man and Uhura was portrayed as a voluptuous blond. The creator (Rodenberry) had described the characters to the comic artist but had failed to mention some pretty key elements.
Perhaps that is what is happening here? Maybe our beloved Creators have had to parcel work out and things have gone awry? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trainer101
Moderator Manager
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 2671
Location: Wasting away again ILLUMINATIVILLE...
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sack36 wrote: | Being a new poster, I suppose I really don't have much of a say. But I feel drawn to mention the difference in the writing style. It reminds me of the very first Star Trek comic book. The characters aren't recognizable. Jonas has never been the voice of reason. He has always been the hothead. Daniel has always been the voice of reason, and always been the cautious one. Bree has always looked to Daniel for guidance.
When the Star Trek Comic book came out, Sulu was portrayed as a huge strapping black man and Uhura was portrayed as a voluptuous blond. The creator (Rodenberry) had described the characters to the comic artist but had failed to mention some pretty key elements.
Perhaps that is what is happening here? Maybe our beloved Creators have had to parcel work out and things have gone awry? |
New or "seasoned", your thoughts are as valid as anyone else's. You also bring up some great points - there's almost a role reversal going on here that a lot of viewers seem caught off guard by.
_________________
It's STILL all connected... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Renegade
Enthusiastic Fan
Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 328
Location: Hamburg, Germany
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sack36 wrote: | [...]
Perhaps that is what is happening here? Maybe our beloved Creators have had to parcel work out and things have gone awry? |
Actually...that is not so far fetched. Didn't the Creators go to England to clarify and plan KateModern?
Although, quite honestly, I don't think that's it. This is the internet, after all...they would have had the chance to pre-screen the video before it was uploaded, and could've stopped this, had it been somebody else's work...
_________________
[ YouTube Profile ] [ Dawson's Cove ]
Every time you score a goal, a starving child in Africa dies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Haether
Lonely Fan
Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 230
Location: DC area
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I will just highlight a important part of your post USA...
Your president spends $456 billion dollars on a war... Cause you going to have a few problems in the USA... |
And that has anything to do with kidnapping?
I'm no supporter of the war, but that comment appears to be highly irrelevent.
Just because something is on the news doesn't mean it's because it doesn't happen all the time. People get murdered in DC on a daily basis, and it's covered on the news.
Kidnapping happens a lot in many countries. The reason we hear about it so much here is because of legislation in this country that requires public notification of missing children (i.e., Amber Alerts).
Lonelygirl15, a US based internet series, shouldn't have to shut down its production because some kid got taken. I watch MSNBC/CNN all day and I haven't heard a word of this. It's a non-story here.
basically, calm down. And, try to keep the ad homs to a minimum. k thanx.
_________________
---
A DECOYED GRILL VISIT NIL
it is spelled DEFINITELY
learn it, live it, love it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lurker
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Renegade wrote: | Yeah, that illustrates my point quite well.
Because, if you look closely, you'll see that, from all the things listed, the only "bad" ones done by BD&J are:
- jonas pulls a gun on aunt alex
- daniel gets drunk every day for awhile.
- they kidnap julia to save her from the order
everything else was done by forces who were designed to be evil - you expect them to do amoral things. Bree tying up Jonas may not have been nice, but she assumed she was defending herself - and defending yourself is a much different thing than breaking into someone's house and dragging her out. |
It sounds to me like you want archetypes where clearly identified good and bad guys do only clearly identifiable good and bad things. There's a vast spectrum that lay between the two points, though, and that shade of grey is where we find more realistic characterization and more realistic conflict.
The very fact that this series has always supposed to have been based in our world should lend credibility to the appearance of scenarios that aren't going to be as fairy tale cut and dry as evil tyrants and harassed villagers. You seem to be asking for convenient situations that let the good guys avoid anything less than the most morally sound choices possible.
This wasn't one of those scenarios. It was a choice where they had to decide what the lesser of two or more evils was. There was no option but an evil (including walking away altogether, which seems like one of the greatest of evils in my opinion), so to be upset that they're no longer white as cotton doesn't make sense to me.
| Renegade wrote: | | And, right now, numerous people complain about how, all of a sudden, B&D decide they wanna go capture innocent children. |
You bring up Jules being an innocent as though that should count as a point against BD&J here, when that is, in fact, a point in their favor! You don't leave an innocent kid in the hands of people you believe will murder her. Not if you want to consider yourself ethically sound.
| Renegade wrote: | | But it's the first time The Creators displayed child abduction as a perfectly reasonable decision, and used it for entertainment purposes. |
Renegade, much worse than a simple abduction is used in fiction now and then - and in those cases, it's not by people who are trying to take the kid away from homicidal psychopaths. It tends to be through-and-through villains doing the abducting most of the time.
In any case, as near as I can tell, it wasn't being done for shits and giggles here. It's an important moment in the history of the characters. It says how far they're willing to go, and it inevitably asks us to ponder what we would do in the same situation. That's more than just some shallow media item for one to get their jollies off on.
| Renegade wrote: | | And that'll be the worst about it...that they just go kidnap a girl, and everything will be fine in the end. No cops, no judge, no prison. "Thanks for kidnapping me, let's be friends." What kind of message are The Creators sending with that? |
So we should be unreasonable and not forgive people for making difficult decisions to protect us when we didn't fully understand a situation? Throw them in prison for that?
If that's not what you're saying, I apologize. If it is what you're saying, then I think that's neither realistic nor fair.
What you seem to be saying is that actions taken are all that matter, not the reasons, and not even whether it actually was to the benefit of the one in danger. While the concept of the ends justifying the means is a fallacious one, in this case, there was apparently a kid in danger and in need of protecting. If protecting her is the most ethical thing, then BD&J have done the most ethical thing - even if they had to commit the unfortunate act of frightening her.
| sack36 wrote: | | Being a new poster, I suppose I really don't have much of a say. |
You have as much as anyone.
| sack36 wrote: | | The characters aren't recognizable. Jonas has never been the voice of reason. He has always been the hothead. Daniel has always been the voice of reason, and always been the cautious one. Bree has always looked to Daniel for guidance. |
Actually, Bree's been quite in charge of Daniel in the past. While she looked to him for guidance during the early days of the Motel Saga, she soon took control of that situation, as she wanted to go to Jonas' place.
At the cabin, she especially had control. She got Daniel to tie up Jonas, and was trying to make all the decisions. It was only because Daniel took pity on Jonas and loosened the severity to which he was tied (which he did while asking that Jonas not try to escape) that Jonas even got out of that alive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheeBerean
Lonely Fan
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 192
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think interacting with Lurker, Renegade, Milowent and the others on the forum have helped me clarify fpr myself why I felt the way I did after seeing the video. Some of that is articulated in my last post at the top of the page.
I just saw the latest video where Jules escaped. I do have to say that this was a good move by the writers. It is simply unrealistic that Jules would suddenly "come around" while being tied up in their motel room. Jonas suggests they forget searching for Jules and try to focus on intervening at the ceremony itself. FINALLY, we are getting somewhere... at the same time the BDJ love triangle intensifies (not that I really care, personally... but it is movement at least). In the end, perhaps converting Jules isn't totally neccessary for the plot to move forward... it may even be that the kidnapping may set that scenario up....
BUT... let's say for second that the kidnapping as a plot device does work... it makes us hate bree (well many of us, not all) but works in the story. We are still left with an abiding issue. The creators chose to tell this story using imagery that is unneccessarily graphic and disturbing. Why? Is it a desparate attempt for sensualization or simply bad taste?
I still contend that the kidnapping video simply does not "fit" or "flow" with the story as it has unfolded; I remain skeptical that the resolution will be satisfying. The lack of set-up seems incontinuitis. But beyond all of that... the creators portrayal of the kidnapping is simply tasteless and crude. The video is simply wrong.
~tb
_________________
The Flock is being Misled. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sack36
Devoted Fan
Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 549
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
TheeBerean, I actually feel the way you do about this circumstance, but this cocky little voice in my head keeps screaming, "BDJ are just kids! They haven't got a clue about the right and wrong of it!" I have a cousin who took me to Disneyland for the first time wearing a down vest in 100 degree weather. When I asked him why he had the coat on, he said, "because it looks [terrific]" (the word he actually used was 'cool' but he meant it like terrific.) He was 16 at the time. It seems plausible to my little voice that if Jacques could wear winter wear in 100 degree weather, Bree could do something equally as stupid and pull the guys in after.
So, TheeBerean, since you're the voice of reason, can I borrow a hammer to clobber that cocky little voice before I get a headache?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Renegade
Enthusiastic Fan
Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 328
Location: Hamburg, Germany
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lurker wrote: | It sounds to me like you want archetypes where clearly identified good and bad guys do only clearly identifiable good and bad things. There's a vast spectrum that lay between the two points, though, and that shade of grey is where we find more realistic characterization and more realistic conflict.
The very fact that this series has always supposed to have been based in our world should lend credibility to the appearance of scenarios that aren't going to be as fairy tale cut and dry as evil tyrants and harassed villagers. You seem to be asking for convenient situations that let the good guys avoid anything less than the most morally sound choices possible. |
No, you're misunderstanding me - I have nothing against shades of gray. They make stories far more interesting. But they have to actually exist. That was simply not the case with BD&J.
Had Daniel behaved violently towards Random Girl, constantly been pushy towards Bree, and inappropriately groped Alex from time to time, I'd have believed he'd be capable of abducting children in certain situations. But that simply wasn't the case.
BD&J were always portrayed as the goody little kids who stumbled into this - who got this forced upon them and were just trying to defend themselves. Even when they fought back, they did so the "good" way - with brains instead of weapons, friends at their sides and lots and lots of sorries if they made a mistake.
The way they are displayed in this arc just totally doesn't fit this previous portrayal.
Had the Creators always hinted at a dark side in all of them, I'd still not have liked that they actually had to show the kidnapping, but I'd have believed it, story-wise.
Think for yourself: Go back one and a half weeks. Remember the first time you saw No Trespassing. How they laughed together, were fooling around, the boys were hanging out, the girls were calling the guys wimps...
...had I told you directly afterwards that, just two videos later, they'd go into Julia's house and violently kidnap her, would you have believed it for one second? Hell no.
Because it just doesn't fit their characters.
I don't know if somebody wanted more action, or if they wanted BD&J to look tougher, if they needed a way to get rid of Jules when nobody liked her, whatever the reason - somebody screwed up continuity bigtime. The cut was just too hard. It's not believable, story-wise. And that is what I'm complaining about. Not that there might be characters who aren't clearly "good" or "bad". Bree's "dad" basically deceived her for all her life, yet we consider him a good guy. Tachyon would've easily sacrificed the "Teenage Angst Adventure Gang", had it fit her purposes, yet we consider her an ally. The Watchers never touched Bree, and even protected her from other Orderites - yet we consider them evil.
Shades of grey are nothing new in the series. But BD&J aren't grey. They were portrayed as the series's white-point for almost a year, and now, all of a sudden, from one video to another, they're in deep, dark grey. That is what's annoying me, and that is what I consider exceptionally bad continuity.
| Lurker wrote: | | This wasn't one of those scenarios. It was a choice where they had to decide what the lesser of two or more evils was. There was no option but an evil (including walking away altogether, which seems like one of the greatest of evils in my opinion), so to be upset that they're no longer white as cotton doesn't make sense to me. |
As I've said in one of the video-threads, they should've just followed her when she didn't react well. That way, they could've protected her the moment she was in danger, she'd immediately have seen who's good and who's bad, and everything would've been fine; instead, they compromised their integrity, scared the shit out of her, and pre-proved everything the Order is going to tell Jules about them now.
Good job protecting her.
| Lurker wrote: | | You bring up Jules being an innocent as though that should count as a point against BD&J here, when that is, in fact, a point in their favor! You don't leave an innocent kid in the hands of people you believe will murder her. Not if you want to consider yourself ethically sound. |
Err, reality check?
- The Order gave Jules a home, a family, education, and makes her feel special.
- BD&J harassed her online, assaulted her on the street, and kidnapped her right out of her home.
...so far, the Order sounds a lot better than BD&J.
Point being: You cannot be the bright, white guardian angel descending from the heavens to protect the innocent child, if you do so like an ork escaped from the darkest pits of hell.
You say "You don't leave an innocent kid in the hands of people you believe will murder her. Not if you want to consider yourself ethically sound.".
I say: You don't assault and kidnap innocent children. Not if you want to consider yourself ethically sound.
As I have said above, they could've just protected her from the backgrounds. The could've intervened when the Order came to get her for the ceremony. They could've interrupted the ceremony itself. They could've left her photos of previous actions done by the Order. They could've planted a seed of doubt in her mind by innocently asking how much she actually knows about the ceremony. They could've disrupted the Order's plans by spraypainting on her home "YOU ARE ADOPTED".
They could've done a whole lot of things to make sure the Order doesn't harm her.
Instead, they just harmed her themselves.
So much for protecting the innocent child.
| Lurker wrote: | | Renegade, much worse than a simple abduction is used in fiction now and then - and in those cases, it's not by people who are trying to take the kid away from homicidal psychopaths. It tends to be through-and-through villains doing the abducting most of the time. |
Yes. Hence my comment before on how it is a question of relativity - in a law and order show, it is perfectly normal people get kidnapped. So the act itself doesn't have as much of an impact, and it is done by the bad guys.
In this case, we saw Daniel grab and drag out the screaming, crying, innocent child. The good guy Daniel. In a series where the only previous display of an actual kidnapping was blurry, confused, and without resistance.
That is a grave difference.
| Lurker wrote: | | In any case, as near as I can tell, it wasn't being done for shits and giggles here. It's an important moment in the history of the characters. It says how far they're willing to go, and it inevitably asks us to ponder what we would do in the same situation. That's more than just some shallow media item for one to get their jollies off on. |
Oh, I agree it is an important moment in the history of the characters. Unfortunately, it just doesn't fit the history of the characters, which makes this so bad.
And I don't actually have to ponder that. The worst thing I'd do is break into her house, wait for her, and shut the door, tell her everything I have to say, give her a number to contact me, and then go. 'cause then I'd have told her everything I could tell her, she'd have listened, and, by not hurting her even though I could and giving her my number, I demonstrated that I have no intention to hurt her. She'd stay back, cry her eyes out, and, one or two days later, begin to ponder what I said. Notice how some of the things I said fit the behavior of the Orderites. Up until a point where the Order wants to force her to do something she doesn't want to, and, in her fear and desperation, she dials my number and we take off.
Girl saved, moral integrity preserved, Order fucked. No kidnappings, no assaults, no nothing.
Took me one minute to think of that plan. Now explain why it's absolutely necessary for BD&J to kidnap her?
| Lurker wrote: | So we should be unreasonable and not forgive people for making difficult decisions to protect us when we didn't fully understand a situation? Throw them in prison for that?
If that's not what you're saying, I apologize. If it is what you're saying, then I think that's neither realistic nor fair. |
You are missing my point either way. I am talking about artistic responsibility here. No matter whether their actions are right or wrong, BD&J are constantly being shown doing one criminal act after another, yet there is never any consequence.
What message does that send to underaged, minor viewers?
In this world, you cannot just go and kidnap people. No matter your intentions or reasons. By displaying that as a perfectly reasonable option, and ending it with a happy group hug and new friends, The Creators are basically enticing minor viewers to follow suit and do similarly violent things in real life - they just wanted help, so it'll be alright, right?
In real life, kidnappings have consequences. No matter for what reason they were executed. Hundreds of thousands of cases of "child abduction" each year, where one parent wanted to protect the kids from the other, prove that. The intentions may be right, but there are still consequences. Law is law. Kidnapping is kidnapping. That must have consequences.
| Lurker wrote: | | What you seem to be saying is that actions taken are all that matter, not the reasons, and not even whether it actually was to the benefit of the one in danger. While the concept of the ends justifying the means is a fallacious one, in this case, there was apparently a kid in danger and in need of protecting. If protecting her is the most ethical thing, then BD&J have done the most ethical thing - even if they had to commit the unfortunate act of frightening her. |
But they didn't protect her - they assaulted her. They did exactly what they were supposedly protecting her from. Violence. Force. Fear. They didn't just frighten her a little and told her what's going on. They came into her house, dragged her out, tied her up, and held her prisoner. No intention in the world can make that "right".
_________________
[ YouTube Profile ] [ Dawson's Cove ]
Every time you score a goal, a starving child in Africa dies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Haether
Lonely Fan
Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 230
Location: DC area
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | What message does that send to underaged, minor viewers? |
I think everyone watching this series is capable of separating reality and fiction. Do you really think there are a lot of 3 year olds watching Lonelygirl? By age 4, most children are capable of differentiating between right and wrong. Viewers of this show know that kidnapping is wrong, just as much as they know murder, breaking and entering, assault, and transportation of deadly weapons across borders are wrong--all illegal acts we've seen previously.
I would, frankly, be more concerned about the themes of meeting strangers of unknown intent on the internet that have been omnipresent in this series. This kidnapping scene could, perhaps, remind children to be cautious around strangers.
_________________
---
A DECOYED GRILL VISIT NIL
it is spelled DEFINITELY
learn it, live it, love it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
milowent
Devoted Fan
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 883
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
today's most viewed videos at youtube:
kidnapping fueled?
_________________
“Can't repeat the past? Why of course you can!” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Renegade
Enthusiastic Fan
Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 328
Location: Hamburg, Germany
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Haether wrote: | | I think everyone watching this series is capable of separating reality and fiction. Do you really think there are a lot of 3 year olds watching Lonelygirl? By age 4, most children are capable of differentiating between right and wrong. Viewers of this show know that kidnapping is wrong, just as much as they know murder, breaking and entering, assault, and transportation of deadly weapons across borders are wrong--all illegal acts we've seen previously. |
...and all illegal acts that went unpunished in any way.
Don't get me wrong - I'm a gamer. I know from experience how stupid all this "omfg!! they're gonna copy exactly what they see!" crap is. I don't think waves of teenagers will go and kidnap their friends now. The problem I see is not that a kidnapping was shown (independent from the fact that, in my opinion, it could have been less graphic). The problem I see is that it'll go unpunished, and the series will undoubtedly make it look like the kidnapping was the best idea ever, and Jules will be thankful for it.
And I don't think portraying a crime as serious as child abduction in such a light is responsible or even ethical.
I've said it before: Child abduction is not funny. It should not be treated this lightly. There's nothing entertaining in seeing Daniel blog in front of a tied up minor.
And that Bree was in tears, not understanding why Jules might actually want to flee after three strangers abducted her, doesn't help the matter either.
I know this is fiction. And I know not all kids are stupid. But there is a reason we have age checks in front of violent movies. There is a reason we have age checks for violent video games. A portrayal of violence in modern day situations is not necessarily unrealistic or dramatically wrong - but it needs to be handled carefully and responsibly. And that didn't happen in this case.
| Haether wrote: | | I would, frankly, be more concerned about the themes of meeting strangers of unknown intent on the internet that have been omnipresent in this series. This kidnapping scene could, perhaps, remind children to be cautious around strangers. |
Got a point there. Only problem: She behaved right: She ignored the internet stalkers, didn't want to talk to them, and fled when they approached her IRL - and what happened to her? They broke into her home and abducted her.
Same question again: What message does that send?
_________________
[ YouTube Profile ] [ Dawson's Cove ]
Every time you score a goal, a starving child in Africa dies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Haether
Lonely Fan
Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 230
Location: DC area
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | But there is a reason we have age checks in front of violent movies. |
yes, there is a reason: misplacement of blame; people who actually think growing up playing games like Mortal Kombat, or more recent, Grand Theft Auto are going to make you take several guns to school and shoot up the place. Yeah, or a underlying psychosis. Whatever.
| Quote: | Got a point there. Only problem: She behaved right: She ignored the internet stalkers, didn't want to talk to them, and fled when they approached her IRL - and what happened to her? They broke into her home and abducted her.
Same question again: What message does that send? |
Parents should be watching what their kids are doing (especially if they're part of a crazy cult that murders teenage girls)
_________________
---
A DECOYED GRILL VISIT NIL
it is spelled DEFINITELY
learn it, live it, love it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Haether
Lonely Fan
Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 230
Location: DC area
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| milowent wrote: | today's most viewed videos at youtube:
kidnapping fueled? |
Probably more like they actually posted in on YouTube in a reasonable period of time, finally!
_________________
---
A DECOYED GRILL VISIT NIL
it is spelled DEFINITELY
learn it, live it, love it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lurker
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheeBerean wrote: | Very well articulated, Renegade. Milowent, your list also brings out a good point. However, there is one key difference in this video than in all of the others: the way the Creators decided to display it.
In all of the above mentioned scenarios, most of the events were talked about rather than shone. Or if they were shone, it was usually pretty tasteful. When Bree's dad was shot, we saw what happened and the camera techniques used emphasized the fear and sudden chaos of the situation. You didn't see him rolling around on the ground in agony with his guts hanging out.
If the Creators wanted a kidnapping to occur it could have been handled so much better. The use of graphic images was simply unneccessary and was totally unjustified by the storyline. (Great examples were posted by Renegade... and I'm sure I could find a few more to rival it). Yes, you could probably find worse on another show or movie, but this is in specific reference to LG15. This is why I say the video crossed a moral line. |
TB, I missed this earlier or I would have responded to it then (sorry):
Wouldn't not showing the kidnapping be the unethical move? It would really trivialize the severity of both the situation (the kidnapping of a little kid who was fully aware of what was happening to her) and the moral dilemma surrounding it. If we didn't see Jules in terror and trying to fight back, and it just went straight to her tied up on the floor or something, it would seem like the whole thing is hardly a big deal at all.
| Renegade wrote: | No, you're misunderstanding me - I have nothing against shades of gray. They make stories far more interesting. But they have to actually exist. That was simply not the case with BD&J.
...
Shades of grey are nothing new in the series. But BD&J aren't grey. They were portrayed as the series's white-point for almost a year, and now, all of a sudden, from one video to another, they're in deep, dark grey. That is what's annoying me, and that is what I consider exceptionally bad continuity. |
I don't think they've been portrayed as completely good at all. Especially not Bree, who was going to let Jonas die just because she found that thing in his cabin and didn't want to believe him. All he'd done for her went out the window and she wouldn't even give him a chance. Even if he had been revealed as a villain, the way she reacted was unfair to him. Then there's how she's treated Daniel in the past, which was nothing short of cruel.
Jonas, of course, has had his moment with the gun, and while Daniel's never done anything one would consider an ethical breach in the same vein as those above, I don't really even think that a precedent for dark behavior is necessary to make this thing believable (though Bree certainly has her precedent).
Daniel's probably the moral center of the group, and - as Jonas pointed out - the voice of reason. In his case, I think that's why it's believable that he go along with something like this. I think it's believable either through making a character noble or through demonstrating that they have no problem with doing unethical things. In Daniel's case, he's been rather noble, and in Bree's case, we know she's okay with making decisions like this anyway.
Bree and Daniel's goals are certainly the same, though I can see them probably rationalizing this differently. Seeing what he's seen and knowing what he knows, Daniel felt it was the best thing for Jules, just like Bree. While she can justify it in her mind as "the ends justify the means" or "drastic times call for drastic measures" (she actually said this in a comment on YouTube), though I think Daniel's too good-hearted to have questioned that it was overall the right move. That's how I see him anyway.
I can see him feeling like it was a terrible thing to do and the right thing to do at the same time.
| Renegade wrote: | As I've said in one of the video-threads, they should've just followed her when she didn't react well. That way, they could've protected her the moment she was in danger, she'd immediately have seen who's good and who's bad, and everything would've been fine; instead, they compromised their integrity, scared the shit out of her, and pre-proved everything the Order is going to tell Jules about them now.
Good job protecting her. |
I would've thought that was a good move if they didn't already feel like she was going to die (which I so hope is what we find out they thought; it's been hinted at previously, so I do think that's what their concern was), but if it was the concern, I wouldn't want to wait that late. Just in case it was in a locked building, or there were tons of guards around. It seems like that's too late in the game to wait for something to go wrong.
Now, I'm not saying that the situation they created went well. It's gone terrible. I just think it was the better choice. In any case, now their only option for protecting her is to try showing up at the ceremony.
| Renegade wrote: | | Lurker wrote: | | You bring up Jules being an innocent as though that should count as a point against BD&J here, when that is, in fact, a point in their favor! You don't leave an innocent kid in the hands of people you believe will murder her. Not if you want to consider yourself ethically sound. |
Err, reality check?
- The Order gave Jules a home, a family, education, and makes her feel special.
- BD&J harassed her online, assaulted her on the street, and kidnapped her right out of her home.
...so far, the Order sounds a lot better than BD&J. |
If the Order did all that in the same way one fattens up a turkey for cooking, who sounds better then?
| Renegade wrote: | | Point being: You cannot be the bright, white guardian angel descending from the heavens to protect the innocent child, if you do so like an ork escaped from the darkest pits of hell. |
Of course you can do good while doing bad. It depends on the situation. Sometimes it's right, and sometimes it's wrong. In this case, taking her as they did was better in my opinion than waiting until the room for error ws much lower.
| Renegade wrote: | You say "You don't leave an innocent kid in the hands of people you believe will murder her. Not if you want to consider yourself ethically sound.".
I say: You don't assault and kidnap innocent children. Not if you want to consider yourself ethically sound. |
You're including all of the first scenario, but cutting half of that second one off. What you're trying to say here is "You don't kidnap innocent children, not even to take them away from people who you believe will murder them. Not if you want to consider yourself ethically sound." I disagree.
| Renegade wrote: | | As I have said above, they could've just protected her from the backgrounds. The could've intervened when the Order came to get her for the ceremony. |
Dude, how would that be any better than this? If terrifying her by going into her house and physically removing her is so awful, how much worse would it have been if they showed up and shot the people who were going to take her to do something she was willing to do, and then grabbed her?
| Renegade wrote: | | They could've interrupted the ceremony itself. |
I've already mentioned why I think that's a bad idea, so I'll move on to the next.
| Renegade wrote: | | They could've left her photos of previous actions done by the Order. |
She would have ignored it. She even ignored Bree on the internet.
| Renegade wrote: | | They could've planted a seed of doubt in her mind by innocently asking how much she actually knows about the ceremony. |
They'd have to get her to have a conversation with them first.
| Renegade wrote: | | They could've disrupted the Order's plans by spraypainting on her home "YOU ARE ADOPTED". |
Okay, I hope that you're joking here. That one makes me want to laugh. XD
In any case, some of your scenarios seem to rely on them having a lot of time, and/or the means to actually approach the ceremony. Since they couldn't count on any of that (and may have even had a suggestion that time was short), the situation was much more complicated.
| Renegade wrote: | | Lurker wrote: | | Renegade, much worse than a simple abduction is used in fiction now and then - and in those cases, it's not by people who are trying to take the kid away from homicidal psychopaths. It tends to be through-and-through villains doing the abducting most of the time. |
Yes. Hence my comment before on how it is a question of relativity - in a law and order show, it is perfectly normal people get kidnapped. So the act itself doesn't have as much of an impact, and it is done by the bad guys.
In this case, we saw Daniel grab and drag out the screaming, crying, innocent child. The good guy Daniel. In a series where the only previous display of an actual kidnapping was blurry, confused, and without resistance.
That is a grave difference. |
Well, this relates back to what I said to TheeBerean. It was fine to have the obvious villains abducting the good guys with a blurry, confusing visual. To have then had the heroes abduct an innocent kid in the same manner would have been callous and would have trivialized the severity of what they chose to do.
I think it was important that we actually see Jules terrified of them, and important that we see her fighting back and unable to get away. Not because I enjoyed seeing it happen to her, but because it's honest. It doesn't downplay the moral quandry at hand. It doesn't ask you to dismiss what was happening and just focus on what comes next.
It forced us to look at the act itself and ask "Was that really the right thing?" It asked us to ponder what we would do. It acknowledged on its own that what was happening was horrible, but asked us to consider whether it was also right.
This comment from you makes me still feel like you're uncomfortable with moving away from the archetype. I believe you when you say you can appreciate grey areas, but I get the feeling that you're nonetheless uncomfortable with them when they're not at least presented more gracefully on the part of the good guys.
Maybe that's good, though. For those uncomfortable with it, that's what will get them to ask themselves if it was the right thing.
| Renegade wrote: | And I don't actually have to ponder that. The worst thing I'd do is break into her house, wait for her, and shut the door, tell her everything I have to say, give her a number to contact me, and then go. 'cause then I'd have told her everything I could tell her, she'd have listened, and, by not hurting her even though I could and giving her my number, I demonstrated that I have no intention to hurt her. She'd stay back, cry her eyes out, and, one or two days later, begin to ponder what I said. Notice how some of the things I said fit the behavior of the Orderites. Up until a point where the Order wants to force her to do something she doesn't want to, and, in her fear and desperation, she dials my number and we take off.
Girl saved, moral integrity preserved, Order fucked. No kidnappings, no assaults, no nothing.
Took me one minute to think of that plan. Now explain why it's absolutely necessary for BD&J to kidnap her? |
The potential problems with what you suggested are that she might not listen when she came in and you shut the door (in which case you would have to physically hold her down and cover her mouth anyway just to get her to hear you), and her possible lack of the luxury of several days to think it over.
| Renegade wrote: | You are missing my point either way. I am talking about artistic responsibility here. No matter whether their actions are right or wrong, BD&J are constantly being shown doing one criminal act after another, yet there is never any consequence.
What message does that send to underaged, minor viewers? |
Forgive me for sounding like I'm dismissing your concerns, but come on.
Let's put things in perspective here: The bad guys have kidnapped children, murdered people (some of them possibly children), brainwashed people (figuratively and literally), operate a religion for the sake of manipulation, and call "Do what I tell you or I kill someone you love" scenarios an excercise in free will. Yet - with the exception of one kidnapper who got shot by another person from the same organization - they've yet to suffer a single negative consequence. The organization as a whole is just peachy.
In fact, we've been told that they have police, corporations and politicians on their side. Added to that, the Order must be absolutely loaded if they can afford to raise thousands of girls in homes around the world from birth to adulthood. They're highly criminal and very successful.
Why aren't you questioning whether there's a message in that? Does it tell people that it's okay to be a criminal because you'll become wealthy and influential, and then get away with anything you want?
| Renegade wrote: | In this world, you cannot just go and kidnap people. No matter your intentions or reasons. By displaying that as a perfectly reasonable option, and ending it with a happy group hug and new friends, The Creators are basically enticing minor viewers to follow suit and do similarly violent things in real life - they just wanted help, so it'll be alright, right?
In real life, kidnappings have consequences. No matter for what reason they were executed. Hundreds of thousands of cases of "child abduction" each year, where one parent wanted to protect the kids from the other, prove that. The intentions may be right, but there are still consequences. Law is law. Kidnapping is kidnapping. That must have consequences. |
You've gone from talking about morality to talking about the law - which does not go hand in hand with ethics. In any case, if you want to talk about laws, there are plenty of times that people should have stood up and said "f**k the law." Laws are supposed to maintain fairness for everyone, and they should consider intentions. The spirit of a law is more important than the letter, even if that's not how reality operates.
I don't think promoting compliance with an unjust legal situation should be a message sent out by the series any more than you think it should be saying kidnapping is fine. I also don't think it should be saying kidnapping is fine, but I have no problem with it showing a kidnapping committed for the right reasons.
And, you know, there's a reason that people cheered when Al Pacino's character in "... And Justice for All" launched a tirade against the entire court system in the last few minutes of the film, and there's a reason no one protested when Commodore Norrington relented on executing Jack Sparrow in "Pirates of the Caribbean." The average person would like to see compassion be the actual rule of the law.
Instead of asking "What kind of message does this send to people where breaking the law is concerned?" I would be asking why the system isn't more concerned with asking "Why did you commit the crime?" - but that's a question that lays outside LG15 and this discussion.
In any case, give people more credit than that. No one who is old enough to actually pull off a kidnapping and watches this is going to think that LG15's heroes committing a justified one (even if they face no negative consequences for it) means that there's no legal ramifications for them doing the same, or that the morality of it isn't determined by the situation. If they do, it's their parents' fault for not trying to educate them.
| Renegade wrote: | | But they didn't protect her - they assaulted her. They did exactly what they were supposedly protecting her from. |
I didn't see her die at their hands.
| Renegade wrote: | | Violence. Force. Fear. They didn't just frighten her a little and told her what's going on. They came into her house, dragged her out, tied her up, and held her prisoner. |
Would you stick around there and wait for her parents to show up?
| Renegade wrote: | | No intention in the world can make that "right". |
I disagree. If we have to agree to do so, we just will, but their decision remains the morally superior in my eyes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
