Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[fqllve]

I still couldn't apply them to most of my favorite works.

That's how media works though. It trends. You aren't likely to get a huge variety at any one point in time and really the best way to get variety is to consume works from multiple different trends in multiple different time periods. I really don't see that changing, honestly.

Also why would you allcaps my name? It's the other way around. ;_;

Kids don't have emotional maturity. Teen-targeted shows sometimes try for it though, since they have mostly developed emotional maturity (sort of, maby?). Variety is always a good thing, though.

Children do have more ability to deal with sad endings than we give them credit for, as long as they aren't violently or repressively sad.

[Neonivek]

As people tend to say... Think back to many of your favorite movies and shows when you were a child. You can find quite a few of them where someone died.

It wasn't the "Exception" back then like it was now.

Heck the only Onscreen deaths in avatar were meant to be ambiguous canonically (They even mention in the show itself they arn't sure if they actually died)... and Avatar is a HUGE exception.

MIND YOU... Samurai Jack features pretty brutal good guy deaths. Yet the most important one found a way out.

[alexandertnt]

I was probably thinking too far back (as in the telletubbies getting some sort of slow, terminal desease in a heavily colour-desaturated episode, though I don't think there would be that many people who would complain all that much  ).

[Neonivek]

I was probably thinking too far back (as in the telletubbies getting some sort of slow, terminal desease in a heavily colour-desaturated episode, though I don't think there would be that many people who would complain all that much  ).

Yeah, I mean shows for children above the age of 4.

Mind you I grew up with Barney and loved it

[SalmonGod]

fqllve has my perspective on this.  Grey to me typically means a story that is more character-based than morality-based.  Morality-based good vs evil type stories more often use characters as vehicles for the personification of moral archetypes that only really exist as abstracted facets distilled from the complexities of reality.  Realistic characters and their interactions typically are ambiguous, if you weigh both sides equally.  People want different things for different reasons, and their actions will have a variety of effects on the world around them, usually both good and bad. 

I guess I can sort of understand wanting to have a clearly desirable outcome to a story and characters directly working towards that to cheer for (this is how I understand it when you say you want something to "care about")... but that brings it back into the realm of pure entertainment.  It's almost like cheering for a sports team.  This is probably why the good guys always win, even if deus ex machine must descend from the heavens.  If you go to a game for the specific purpose of seeing your team win, pour a ton of emotional energy into cheering them on, and they still lose, that's not a fulfilling experience for anyone.

But when you think about such a story in retrospect, there's not a lot to process.  They're not really an experience so much as a simple thought experiment with a ton of embellishment, like your ethics professor got over-enthusiastic when presenting a scenario.  While I can appreciate any kind of story, the stories that make the greatest impression on me are the ones that leave me feeling like I just experienced another life outside of my own and everything entertaining/vindicating or not that entails.  That's how I see the difference between black & white or grey.

[Leatra]

These guys know what they are talking about. That pretty sums up why I tend to dislike black vs white settings. Watch it. Really.

@SalmonGod and @fqllve, that's another reason why I like gray settings. It opens the way for more deep characters, like how it was in Planescape: Torment.

@Neonivek you are saying in gray settings, we can't root for any side because all of them are crap. However, you see all gray sides as equally evil. A gray person does not murder children and give money to charity to earn the title of "Gray". It's not about extremity of good and evil. Morality is a matter of perspective. If two characters are equally good, you still will root for one of them. Let's say you agree with death penalty. In the story, there are two vigilante buddies, let's call them Bob and Joe. They catch criminals and send them to jail, not murder them. As time passes, Bob say that they should kill extremely evil and psychotic criminals from time to time. He says these people create trouble for the other inmates in jail and they may even escape from the jail. Joe doesn't agree, he thinks that responsibility to take a life isn't something he wants to bear. They start arguing but Joe, who opposes killing, convinces Bob. Later, Bob tracks down a murderer who killed Bob's wife and daughter. Joe tries to keep Bob calm but Bob shoots the murderer six times. Joe starts yelling at Bob. They start fighting eventually and part ways. Or maybe Joe accidentally kills Bob which results in Joe's downright spiral depression. Joe eventually agrees with Bob's methods until he kills someone who Joe thought was a psychotic murderer. The guy who Joe killed was forced to murder because the mafia kidnapped his family. Joe goes back to his old ways bla bla bla. The story carries on.

Who did you root for? The story clearly shows that killing isn't the solution in the end. The guy who opposed killing was more white-ish and we should root for him, right? Nope, if there was a game like this, there are going to be lots of people who thought the guy who wanted to kill was right. Even if you liked the guy who opposed killing better, it's not because you absolutely hated the other guy. Or maybe you did. That's the beauty of it. It all depends on your perspective. It reminds me how some people defended Shane in The Walking Dead (tv series) even though he clearly was ruthless. It's better than all vigilantes being ultimately good who would never kill anyone and all criminals being crazy people who would murder people for fun.

[SalmonGod]

Ugh... as someone who read the comic, it really bothers me when people defend Shane.

[Neonivek]

Neonivek you are saying in gray settings, we can't root for any side because all of them are crap. However, you see all gray sides as equally evil.

Equally banal

Your story isn't set up as a "Gray story" in some respect Joe is clearly set up as the good guy with Bob as the bad guy (or the reverse, as it is all in the telling). Then it does a rug pull and breaks Joe and ends with just a cycle of endless torment that is supposed to make the audiance feel empty because someone who had promise ended up just being a the same product of the environment he lives in.

He doesn't grow he just is forced down into the mud and becomes just another hoodlum.

The guy who opposed killing was more white-ish and we should root for him, right?

Uhhh... Yes. The story is clearly set up as a story where we are supposed to side with Joe.

Or it is set up where Bob is who we are meant to root for and it is a "world sucks".

Yet that is the thing. After all has been said and done... Both Bob and Joe are just slaves to the setting.

It's better than all vigilantes being ultimately good who would never kill anyone and all criminals being crazy people who would murder people for fun.

The difference between this and your story is simple. The characters are informed by the setting but rise above it.

Your story isn't about Bob or Joe it is about the setting. It isn't about murder but rather about the corrupting effects of murder and how it eventually just spirals out of control.

What is draining about it is that I know what story they are telling and there is simply no hope. Joe isn't going to reaffirm his morals, Bob isn't going to bring his partner back from the bring, they arn't going to clean up crime. It is a story about how the setting killed the protagonists.

It is what is so draining about constant depressing media. It isn't JUST that it is a sad ending, but rather that it is a draining sad ending. You arn't just sad you are left empty.

if there was a game like this, there are going to be lots of people who thought the guy who wanted to kill was right.

You know what is hillarious Leatra?

If this WAS a game it wouldn't be a "grey story". It would be about you chosing to be the angel of purity and light or on the otherhand satan. Yet that is also a terrible way to tell a story.

Since what I think games with "Moral choices" do wrong is that they are never about "intelligent" choices.

---

Mind you there are soo many types of grey stories. I am just trying to explain why I don't like ones where no side is desirable.

[Leatra]

Well, what kind of story do you expect me to create in 10 minutes just to use it as an example? If you see that story as a choice between becoming angel of purity or the satan, you really have no idea what I'm talking about. Joe and Bob are characters not slaves to the setting. Bob kills the murderer because he killed his family. Why does Darkspawn destroy everything in Dragon Age: Origins? Seriously, how can you not see this? If the story I made up was like choosing between acting like a satan vs angel, what about the story of Dragon Age?

And there is going to be people who will defend Bob. Not because he represents death penalty or anything. Because of his character. He kills a murderer who killed his family and ends up getting killed by his best friend after that. You are not going to say "Oh yeah, the motherfucker hit the dust!" when you see him dying at the hands of Joe. The story isn't about questioning murder and execution, it's just the ideas of these two characters. It's not like Bob is living his life dedicated to killing criminals and legalizing death penalty. Neither Joe or Bob is the bad guy. Bob kills a murderer and Joe kills Bob (accidently) and then he ends up with agreeing with Bob's ideals for a while. You are trying to narrow down everything to black or white. Maybe it's the reason why you don't like gray vs gray settings at all.

Ugh... as someone who read the comic, it really bothers me when people defend Shane.

Yeah, but Shane didn't have much character development in the comic version anyway.

[Neonivek]

No I am not saying that. I am saying if it was a game... ironically it wouldn't be handled the way you are trying to potray it does.

Joe and Bob are characters not slaves to the setting. Bob kills the murderer because he killed his family. Why does Darkspawn destroy everything in Dragon Age: Origins? Seriously, how can you not see this? If the story I made up was like choosing between acting like a satan vs angel, what about the story of Dragon Age?

The Darkspawn are part of the setting they arn't characters with autonomy or even much freewill. No different then demons and monsters (in fact they are monsters).

Joe and Bob though have this autonomy and they have this freewill. They have within them the ability to rise up and challenge the very setting they are in and even succeed. Bob is a product of his experiences and the conclusion he came to was that because he experienced tragedy (ugh bad spelling) in his life that he is going to murder others.

When he does this he is giving into the setting. He isn't breaking the cycle of violence and murder he is perpetuating it. As well there is a expectation within the setting that everyone, who is alive, must also adhere to the setting as well.

He becomes an agent through which we feel the full weight of the setting.

He will never rise above his surroundings, he will never change the setting, he will never come up with any conclusion not perscribed by the setting. In that sense he is a slave to the setting. If he ever thought differently it would only be to show why he is wrong, correct him, and keep him on the path. Thus anytime they differ from the setting it is only to highlight the setting and then put them back on. (in many ways I am realising that this grey setting is EXACTLY like a black and white setting. Where in trying to be realistic they essentially created a gravity well on grey)

It is why I don't really care about Bob... because there is nothing to care about and he isn't going to do anything I care about. If he took down the mafia it would only be with tactics that would be equally as villainous, if he did something good it would be negated, if he gave his life for an ideal it would be in vain. Putting any inch of investment into Bob is just going to lead to emptyness because... that is the setting. Empty.

Bob kills a murderer and Joe kills Bob (accidently) and then he ends up with agreeing with Bob's ideals for a while.

Exactly. The cycle continues. Round and round

You are trying to narrow down everything to black or white. Maybe it's the reason why you don't like gray vs gray settings at all.

It is about actors and Agents. Bob and Joe are agents.

---

My issue is just the futility... It is a soul shatteringly depressing setting. Where everyone better just pick up a gun because things arn't ever going to improve.

It makes me depressed.

Does this mean it is bad? No... (Mind you it isn't an example of a story where I care about neither side... but rather a setting where I don't care about the characters because there is no reason to). My favorite story about a hopelessly depressing situation is Umineko Koro Ni (or however you spell it), yet it is SOO DRAINING! It is an anime that just sucks your soul right out.

[alexandertnt]

Most of your reasoning is based on further extending the story beyond it scope, or otherwise making assumptions that are not implied by the story. They sound reasonably plausable, mind you, but it is still fabricated.

If Bob had been convinced not to kill the murderer, he would still be an example of grey morality (a rather light grey though). As someone who prefers grey, it seems quite ok (It would show that he has some negative emotions and impulses, but is ultimately a decent person. Something that most people are).

What is Bob took down the mafia based on a complex set of principles, that perhaps he invented as the story went along, still feeling the desire/rage and directing it in what he precieved to be the best way possible (now it sounds sort of like Dexter, but you get the idea. You could also remove the desire/rage thing and have him join the police force, born-again style).

I think part of the appeal of Bob in the original scenario to an audience is the audience's understanding of the anger that he would be experiencing, allowing them to not automatically villainize him as the evil murderer straight away, despire the fact that his actions were wrong.

[Neonivek]

Most of your reasoning is based on further extending the story beyond it scope, or otherwise making assumptions that are not implied by the story. They sound reasonably plausable, mind you, but it is still fabricated

Yeah but it is fabricated with the point of demonstrating what I mean.

I think part of the appeal of Bob in the original scenario to an audience is the audience's understanding of the anger that he would be experiencing, allowing them to not automatically villainize him as the evil murderer straight away, despire the fact that his actions were wrong.

In otherwords that he is a "sympathetic character"

though I feel this would be incorrect. What would likely make Bob's character appealing is because people either agree with Bob or because Bob's character is a good outlet for people's aggrivation against just plain rotten people.

Revenge fantasy in otherwords.

Either that or people have a facination with how exactly he kills his victims and his methodology. People are very dark creatures.

Mind you this is all speculation based on something that really didn't have much in it anyhow.

[alexandertnt]

though I feel this would be incorrect. What would likely make Bob's character appealing is because people either agree with Bob or because Bob's character is a good outlet for people's aggrivation against just plain rotten people.

Well not necessarily. I would view Bob as ultimately being in the wrong, since I don't think revenge killing is a very good idea. But the fact that I would view him differently to another character, Carol who killed Alice for no particular reason other than lulz, despite both being murders.

I would not agree with bob, nor would I use bob as an outlet for aggrivation against plain rotten people (who I would not really even consider beyong their necessity in forming the characters).

[Neonivek]

I don't know... the setting agrees with Bob.

Also yeah I don't agree with Bob and wouldn't use it either... Yet I know that there are stories that do that. For example the Saw series eventually developed into this.

MIND you Saw is a horror and a specific kind. I've deconstructed the "Terrible people" horror.

The trick is that malicious people will watch the movie because they want to see these terrible people punished and brutally murdered and like it. While the rest will want these people to survive pretty much no matter HOW terrible they are and thus like the movie.

[fqllve]

Ok. Let's revisit Joe and Bob.

Joe still does not believe in killing. Bob does.

Joe has been kidnapped, he is being interrogated. Bob finds this out and has gone to free him. He has infiltrated the place where Joe is at and knows if he gets caught Joe will be killed. It happens that he is spotted by a guard down a long corridor. His only nonlethal weapon is a taser, which is out of range. He is left with a handgun.

Does he kill the guard and save Joe's life or not? Which is the right choice?

Obviously in the morality of an action movie, the right choice is to kill the guy. But let's say this isn't an action movie. Bob is just your average guy who got into some big trouble with his friend. He has never killed anyone before. His motivations for saving Joe are not entirely pure, as the people they are in trouble with do not know of Bob's involvement. He is worried Joe will inform them. Whether he saves Joe or lets them kill him, he will be in the clear. Again, which is the right choice?