This is a great, concise summary, Monkey! Kudos!MonkeyDude wrote:I probably forgot some stuff. I figure you probably don't mind but maaaajor spoilers.Marvin D. wrote:so I haven't listened to AIO in around 5 years...I think after The Ties that Bind or so, what's the basic TL;DR of major events that have happened?
DITTO.ByeByeBrownie wrote: NOW.
PART. THREE.
OHH. MYYY. GOODNESS.
Whit's answer is lame. And he knows it.And Emily definitely knows it. He says that he maybe should have stepped in sooner ( *coughs* no maybe about it, Whit!). He feebly says, "I hope that's a satisfactory answer, Emily, it's the best one I can give you." She responds with a quiet, "If you say so, Mr. Whittaker." Her words and behavior throughout the scene give me the impression she is unhappy with Whit and no longer trusts him. If they deal with the fact that Whit made some poor decisions and lacked certain judgment, then I AM THRILLED. If they completely ignore it, I will be deeply annoyed.Emily Jones wrote:Then why didn't you tell me? And even more importantly, why did you ever let it happen in the first place?
Monica Stone wrote:cobble box
I feel appreciated. I know Emily and others have canonically called it the "Imagination box", but I always forget and cobble box sounds cooler.Scientific Guy wrote:Monica Stone wrote:cobble box
I'm glad it made sense and wasn't too convoluted. I typed and proofread it as fast as I possibly could.Scientific Guy wrote:No, that’s not my only reply. You’ve done a great job at summarizing your thoughts on these episodes, Monica. I’m talking to Phil tonight, so I’ll bring up some of these points.
Yes, this should be interesting. I really hope they show Morrie and Suzu settling in to Whit's house and getting used to his rules and behavior as we've seen a few times when kids stayed at Whit's house. (for example, Mark Prescott staying with Whit while his mom was out of town in the books). Maybe they'll even find a hidden room or something!Monica Stone wrote:Everything I said before about Morrie and Whit being possibly great foils could become absolutely true. He's their temporary guardian and therefore will have many interactions with Morrie. I'm hyped.
This is certainly very interesting. I can hardly wait to hear the actual conversation with Phil, if you can work around that computer problem.Scientific Guy wrote:What if Morrie Was Right? From AIO Audio News:
Please comment on this and share it with every Odyssey / Rydell fan you know. I really want to hear your thoughts on it.
Glad to have you back haha! And first off, you masterfully worded this! I couldn't have said it any better. I know I'm wearing this phrase out but I completely agree with you here. I'm crossing my fingers that this conflcit comes up again in part 10. Also, love that episode pitch! It would be a really good way to show that actions have consequences (insert SammyClassicSonicFan here lol) even if they are made with good intentions. Something very unique about this arc is how morality has been bent constantly, blurring the line between protagonists and antagonists. Especially after listening to the 'What If Was Morrie Right?' clip, I'm kinda inclined to agree that really nobody is a good guy here. Everyone made mistakes which is what makes it feel realistic to me.Monica Stone wrote:WHOO. This episode was ALOT. I haven't posted sooner because I got myself locked out of my account for a week but I'm back because of the gracious help of Catspaw.
The episode I think was pretty good...overall. But Whit's behavior and end-of-episode explanation to Emily has been bothering me tirelessly ever since I've heard it. I don't know how I feel about him just allowing Suzu and Morrie to potientially break laws (breaking and entering w/ the locker incident, at least) because they need room to mentally stimulate themselves. I appreciate that he sees himself in Emily, Morrie, and Suzu and he wants to let them use their intelligence accordingly, but I feel like Whit allowed them to cross far too many lines. I love that in this episode, Whit's lazer-focused, #1 priority is to get Emily to safety. I just greatly dislike that that didn't seem to be his priority in some of the previous episodes.
But the fact he knew about the escape room incident is something unforgivable. Perhaps he didn't know all of the specifics. But the escape room scenario was deeply traumatizing to Emily and it shows through her actions and words that it still affects her. Now, even if he didn't know that Morrie's plan was to manipulate and trick Emily and Matthew into thinking they would die, he didn't even tell Detective Polehaus or anyone after the fact that Morrie did it all. In "Further from the Truth", Morrie is wandering freely throughout Whit's End and Whit does nothing. Morrie comes to Whit. Not vice versa.
Whit said that Emily asked him to let her investigate on her own. But Whit never even told her, "Hey, listen, I know who is behind everything and maybe you should know." She doesn't know that Whit has already fit all of the pieces together. If she did, she may have demanded to know who did it instead of investigating on her own. It's...messy. At the end of part 3, when Whit admits he knew about everything, Emily asks why he didn't tell her about the escape room.
Whit's answer is lame. And he knows it.And Emily definitely knows it. He says that he maybe should have stepped in sooner ( *coughs* no maybe about it, Whit!). He feebly says, "I hope that's a satisfactory answer, Emily, it's the best one I can give you." She responds with a quiet, "If you say so, Mr. Whittaker." Her words and behavior throughout the scene give me the impression she is unhappy with Whit and no longer trusts him. If they deal with the fact that Whit made some poor decisions and lacked certain judgment, then I AM THRILLED. If they completely ignore it, I will be deeply annoyed.Emily Jones wrote:Then why didn't you tell me? And even more importantly, why did you ever let it happen in the first place?
Episode pitch: Emily no longer wants to go to Whit's End. Even besides being distrustful of Morrie and Suzu, she is cagey everytime she sees Whit. Whit has to realize and deal with his poor decisions when he allowed Morrie & Suzu to break/bend laws at the expense of Emily's wellbeing.
Jay_Smouse wrote:I hope that we see more of Whit, Tasha, Morrie, Emily, and Suzu investigating the people behind Mrs. Mado (The "bad people" Suzu mentioned at the beginning of part 3). Also, I want Part 10 to be an episode where Morrie and Suzu settle in in Whit's home. Then either I want Raymond to come to Odyssey or for them to stay with Whit long-term, preferably the latter. I also want to see some internal conflict in Emily ash she struggles with whether to forgive the Rydells or not. Then, if the Parkers are really going away, Emily says good-bye to Matthew and the Parkers actually move, they don't just disappear and almost never get mentioned again. Though I don't really want the Parkers to leave, I understand that they want fresh characters with (hopefully) consistent actors.
I am so glad you brought this up! There's a section of the song "Wonderful" from the Broadway musical Wicked that really resonates with me, and I think it applies wonderfully here (haha, see what I did there?MonkeyDude wrote:Something very unique about this arc is how morality has been bent constantly, blurring the line between protagonists and antagonists. Especially after listening to the 'What If Was Morrie Right?' clip, I'm kinda inclined to agree that really nobody is a good guy here. Everyone made mistakes which is what makes it feel realistic to me.
Okay, I'll stop 
). Anyway, it goes like this: "There are precious few at ease/ With moral ambiguities/ So we act as though they don't exist." And I kind of get the drift that that's what Phil's wanting us to think about here. AND I DIG IT. We live in a world that wants to assign absolutes to everything. We want "good guys" and "bad guys," simple "rights" and "wrongs." But reality is much more complex than that (just flip through your Bible--the Old Testament in particular). If Phil's goal with this trilogy was simply to spark conversations surrounding issues of uncertain morality, then he has achieved it brilliantly. Dang Bob! That was extremely well said and thought out! I honestly think you might've changed my mind on a couple of things and I've been thinking about this post a lot haha! I think that yeah, Emily made some mistakes and kinda has no chill (like spying on people and just entering houses) but she is in no way the antagonist. She for sure isn't perfect, or maybe even "good" but she isn't to blame. I'm not sure if I believe that Morrie is the antagonist here either but I'm confident that Emily is not a villain and I really like what you said above.Bob wrote:Emily is, to the best of my knowledge, the only one who is honest and trying to uncover the truth where it is obstructed. She's even enough of a stickler to say that she came to the wrong conclusion, based on the grounds that, while she believed (for reasons that were vindicated) that it was Morrie, it was not only Morrie but also Suzu. (Personally I'd give her more than half credit for her investigative skills.)
This concept of claiming Morrie is good based on some utilitarian philosophy is one thing (and bad enough), but it's a bridge too far to claim that someone attempting to find out the truth about a lying, deceitful, manipulative person who is actively causing trouble in their and everyone else's business is villainous for it. This goes dangerously close to calling evil good and good evil. I'd be very disappointed to find that the AIO staff actually think this (though it's more understandable if they just meant to get people to think about it and figure out why they believe what they believe).
So first off here, Brownie, I had so much fun reading through your whole post and dang, you summarized so many of my thoughts about morality, how Phil was probably shooting for this, and especially Emily and mental health! SO GOOD MAN. Thank you for summarizing my thoughts far better than I ever could!ByeByeBrownie wrote:5. A Sacrificial Escape - ARE YOU READY FOR THIS? *drumrollllll* GOOD
To quote Grandpa Bassett, "...and no, I haven't lost my mind."
Emily and Matthew WANTED to do the escape room. Morrie just raised the stakes. For all Emily and Matthew knew, the mysterious voice and all that jazz could have just been part of a super intense escape room experience. Had something truly dangerous happened, or, say, had one of them been on the verge of an actual panic attack or something, I think Morrie would have had enough sense and empathy to stop it. But nobody was ever in any actual danger. Theoretically, it could all be chalked up as an elaborate prank. And Morrie's motives were "good"--to test the mettle of Emily's and Matthew's faith and friendship.
This doesn't tie into anything else I am about to say, but Suzu THREW HER OUT A WINDOW. What?! I did not exactly anticipate that to be what happened after Suzu and Emily struggled. Is that technically kidnapping if Emily willingly followed Suzu afterward?Mysterious Voice wrote:And such a self-sacrificial choice, Emily! Surely that made you feel...good?
Thank you! As I have stated previously, I would be thrilled if they dealt with the fact Whit should have done several things differently. Had he have stepped in sooner, Emily would not have been manipulated into thinking she would die and she may not have been kidnapped by Mrs. Mado. I would also mention the cobble box adventure as something bad that happened, because it had the potiential to be traumatizing, but Emily found it therapeutic. I actually rewrote part of the final scene of part 3 because I was annoyed at it and I may share it in the future.ByeByeBrownie wrote: First off, Monica, what a fabulous summary of what many of us have been thinking! Part 3 left the door wide open for the show to delve into this whole fiasco's effect on Emily and her relationship with Whit in particular, and I really hope the team capitalizes on that opportunity. A simple "I'm sorry" from Whit would not have been difficult to fit into the dialogue, but it would have added SO MUCH, in my opinion. And I'm hoping we do finally get it somewhere down the line. I'm also REALLY hoping we don't end up with an "Emily needs to learn about forgiveness" episode. THAT would almost be enough to make me quit Odyssey.
Poor Emily. But I honestly am so glad Emily didn't move on from what Morrie and Suzu did to her because she realized "oh, it was all done for good!" If future episodes did that, I would be really upset because I do not agree or condone that message. I don't think it would go over well with the teens/adults in the audience and for good reason.THIS.ByeByeBrownie wrote: More than any of the rest of this, though, I see Emily as a broad representation of mental health issues and how they are often handled (or not handled, as it turns out). Question: Why does Emily not seek help, and even refuse it, in her investigation? I think the answer to this question is clearly illustrated by Phil's questioning whether what Emily has experienced is really trauma. Emily has perceived that the people around her are not taking the mysterious happenings as seriously as she is. She feels invalidated by this and thus is hesitant to trust the others. She figures it's better to go it alone than to not be taken seriously. And this is all too often the case with mental health issues in real life. What constitutes trauma (or triggers depression, anxiety, etc.) for one person may not for another. This does not invalidate what the traumatized individual is feeling, but unfortunately often forms a barrier against the person getting the help they need.
That said, my opinion is that in these episodes, Whit has shirked his responsibility to look out not only for Emily's physical wellbeing, but also her mental and emotional wellbeing. I would love to see this angle continue to be explored, with Whit ultimately apologizing for failing Emily in this area.
I think you've stated this better than anyone else could. Agreed on the former points.ByeByeBrownie wrote: A simple "I'm sorry" from Whit would not have been difficult to fit into the dialogue, but it would have added SO MUCH, in my opinion. And I'm hoping we do finally get it somewhere down the line. I'm also REALLY hoping we don't end up with an "Emily needs to learn about forgiveness" episode.
MonkeyDude wrote:... I'm kinda inclined to agree that really nobody is a good guy here. Everyone made mistakes which is what makes it feel realistic to me...
I think this point may be overstated a bit (incidentally, I don't think I did say that, although I did express, in one draft, that Emily isn't perfect (being only human)).But it doesn't matter what I believe. What all this comes down too is that my whole post is extremely hypocritical and we are playing right into Phil's hand by trying to determine who is inherently good and bad on a worldly scale. I believe someone (I think it was Bob? I'm not for sure) pointed this out, but if we try to determine who is "good" we are always going to come up short because guess what? Everyone messed up in these episodes. Everyone has messed up in real-life. No one is good without God. If we try and figure out who's to blame for it we're never going to find a satisfactory answer. I'm trying really hard to not make this sound all preachy because I'm just as (if not more lol) guilty of trying to put labels on literally everything, but if there is one thing I've learned in life and from the Bible, it's that we all are the flipping WORST. By worldly standard, some of us might be worse than others, but by God's, we are all lost and broken the same.
I understand that you're being generous, but I'll have to be less generous and offer some of my counter-appraisals.ByeByeBrownie wrote:Playing devil's advocate, I tried to be as generous as possible in analyzing whether Morrie's actions in each episode were indeed good.
The main fuzzy area in this case is Morrie's conversation with Zoe. It's plausible that he hoped or expected she would react the way she did, so in a sense, you could say it was manipulative.1. Parker for President - GOOD
Morrie did not break any rules in this episode, nor did he do anything that I would consider morally "wrong." I would argue that Emily was, in fact, the best candidate for student body president anyway, so, in my opinion, everything truly "ended up like it should."
We already talked about this a bit. I made the point that while Morrie might have 'returned the stolen goods', I'm not sure it's so much because he's against stealing, but rather because Suzu did it in an uncontrolled fashion and the rewards didn't outweigh the risks. He is perfectly fine with stealing on other occasions, and even took some things himself, as he admitted: just not things that would be missed or could be readily traced to him or Suzu.2. The Key Suspect - TOSSUP
So, here, Morrie is doing what he thinks to be the right thing. First, he returns the stolen goods, and then does what is necessary to keep his sister out of trouble. But in doing so, he has still 1) broken and entered and 2) framed an “innocent” kid.
I might agree that it's not wrong to throw somebody a mystery 'party'. My problem here isn't so much that as the reason why it was done, which Morrie, enjoying a villainous monologue at the end, explains is not actually the reason he publicly gave, but rather for his own hidden agenda. At the best you might say it was the 'right thing for the wrong reason'.3. The Secret of the Writer's Ruse - GOOD
This one's pretty straightforward. Except for that problematic Whit line at the end. I thought that was going to resolve itself in pt. 3, but alas.
Well, we don't know for sure whether that was the only way it could have been accomplished. As it was she was already pretty committed to doing what it took to keep her promise. They fundraised a good amount of money, and presumably could have made more if they hadn't stopped early, due to Olivia choosing to depend on the 'student project fund' matching funds. Now, yes, she made a mistake trusting somebody who they all admitted sounded a bit fishy, and it was her fault they were in that situation to begin with due to her rash promise. However, that doesn't change the fact that Morrie (or technically, Morrie's paid actor) made a 'promise' that he never had any intention of keeping, and left Olivia up a creek when she trusted him to keep his word.4. The Good in People - GOOD
Olivia needed to keep her promise. Morrie's scheme gave her an extra push of motivation that would not likely have come from any other persuasion tactic. This one is actually a very Whit-like move in my opinion.
I think @Monica does a good job elaborating on the nuances of this episode. I will say that even if Morrie had good intentions, that doesn't mean he had a right to do what he did, or that good intentions justify any actions.5. A Sacrificial Escape
Emily and Matthew WANTED to do the escape room. Morrie just raised the stakes. For all Emily and Matthew knew, the mysterious voice and all that jazz could have just been part of a super intense escape room experience... And Morrie's motives were "good"--to test the mettle of Emily's and Matthew's faith and friendship.
I generally agree with the 'consent' argument. The other things that come up here are flaws that tend to implicate *Whit* and his inventions as they normally work. It isn't that uncommon for Whit to mislead or manipulate people in the real IS or RoC, with 'false endings'. It's one thing to say that they gave consent when they first got in, but that consent is not open-ended and indefinite; participants can reasonably expect there to be a clear delineation in both the beginning and the ending of the program, and Whit plays fast and loose with the latter in a few notable cases. It's also worth noting that as a general rule, the IS and RoC are so realistic that even when Whit does offer ample reminders that it is only a program (like constantly nagging Jimmy in "Into Temptation" to do the right thing), the people inside still often forget or lose track of the fact that it isn't real. In my opinion, the fact that Emily recognized it was a false reality, with few clues or deliberate tipoffs to the contrary, shows an enormous degree of deductive ability and mental strength, arguably greater than that exhibited by any other major character in the series.6. Further from the Truth - Good? From bad?
This is the one I get hung up on as far as consent goes. Emily did not consent to the imagination adventure here. There is an element of consent when kids go into the imagination station, because they are voluntarily doing so. Not here, though.
This (and the following section) raise some interesting points. In our discussion I made the point that Emily could have talked to her parents, or even Detective Polehaus (who she has a history and is "in good" with) about it. For some reason, at least as far as we can tell in just the AIO episodes, she chose not to. Why that is is certainly open for discussion. I agree with the thoughts on the relationship between Whit and Emily, though.Question: Why does Emily not seek help, and even refuse it, in her investigation?
I'm impressed with and approve of your commentary on the escape room sequence, incidentally.Monica Stone wrote:I have a ton more thoughts but I'm not quite sure where to begin. In the future, I'll probably write a reaaally long response to Phil Lollar's argument that Morrie is innocent because I deeply disagree and I'm alarmed that AIO is potentially sharing this message.
I completely agree with you. In terms of this discussion, it alarms me that kids could potentially walk away from these episodes and the paraphrased words of Phil Lollar thinking that Morrie was good all along. If this were a show aimed at adults, I think this conversation wouldn't quite bother me as much. If I had heard all of this when I was in the target age range of the show (8-12), I would have been so confused and probably would have sided with the argument that Morrie was good, because from a more naive standpoint, the argument sounds good.Bob wrote: What bothers me and gets me heated up about this in this case, I suppose, is the context of this discussion. If we were just talking about Morrie and his villainy, it's fair enough to say that we shouldn't judge him too harshly, because everybody has done wrong. In this conversation, though, the context is that some have suggested or implied that he didn't do wrong at all, and even that the people who opposed him were wrong. So, in this circumstance the argument comes off a little like saying 'everybody is bad, so Morrie isn't any worse than anyone else'. Yes, everybody is bad in some sense, but we understand that there is a tangible difference between a jaywalker and a murderer.
You are correct and I do want to be fair to him. I will give him the benefit of the doubt until I actually hear his standpoint from his own perspective. I saw a 'theory' that this is all a ploy to get fans to think deeply about morality. Regardless of how this all turns out, it has caused me to ponder deeply and for that I am glad.Bob wrote:In fairness to Phil Lollar, I didn't know if it was clear from the post whether he was actually honestly supporting these arguments, or simply being 'contrary' and making Lee think about it. If he honestly believes this and intends to incorporate this angle in future episodes as a model for listeners, then yes, I would be very disturbed, honestly, so much so that I would probably stop being an Odyssey fan. That said, I'm willing at this point to give him the benefit of the doubt and suppose that he is trying to get people to work to understand the Biblical perspective and their beliefs (rather than taking it on rote, somebody else's authority, or weak arguments).
This is exactly wha I have been thinking!Monica Stone wrote:In terms of this discussion, it alarms me that kids could potentially walk away from these episodes and the paraphrased words of Phil Lollar thinking that Morrie was good all along. If this were a show aimed at adults, I think this conversation wouldn't quite bother me as much. If I had heard all of this when I was in the target age range of the show (8-12), I would have been so confused and probably would have sided with the argument that Morrie was good, because from a more naive standpoint, the argument sounds good.
Yes, definitely. I have been enjoying these discussions thoroughly and I can't wait to also discuss the rest of album 69 as it airs!ByeByeBrownie wrote:I think you guys got me on the escape room. My thoughts on these episodes are constantly being informed and reformed, thanks in no small part to you guys. As MonkeyDude mentioned, these discussions really have been amazing!
True, true. This is what leads me to believe these episodes should have had a parental warning. They are thematically mature and are alot to think about, regardless of age. I already questioned whether they should have one after part 1 when the kidnapping situation was presented. If Icky and Kat and Balty and Bones can get a parental warning for dealing with superstitions, then I don't understand why this one didn't get one. It is what it is, I guess.ByeByeBrownie wrote: The themes here have been presented so ambiguously that I think it would be very confusing for children, particularly on the younger side of Odyssey's target age range. I know the Odyssey team (and Phil in particular) has made a point of saying that Odyssey is not a babysitter and that parents should talk with their kids about what's going on in the episodes, but I am sure that is not often the case.
I am very interested in hearing the AIOWiki Podcast's review with Phil Lollar. When I hear that, I will be able to assess everything fully. In mentioning that Emily & Olivia jumped to conclusions, Phil may be hinting that we should not yet jump to conclusions until we know everything. It is perhaps a test for fansByeByeBrownie wrote:Now, as you guys have mentioned, I don't really think Phil is actually trying to say that Morrie is completely innocent. He's just trying to get us to think--"according to our ability," as it were. After all, he did not specifically state this point to Lee, but rather led him there through a series of questions and arguments. That said, I still don't think that many of the younger listeners will yet have the abstract thinking skills to be able to explore these topics in a helpful and constructive manner. However, we cannot assume it will all fly over their heads either. So then we are left with a confusing middle ground that leaves kids questioning morality.
I'm really interested in where this saga goes in the future. It really is just so different from anything AIO has ever done, and it has potential to be REALLY GOOD. But there's also a big possibility it could go the other way, too.
Yes, I liked Further from the Truth. These are really good points, you got me there! I think I botched the wording that because I didn't mean to imply that Morrie is excused of consequences or even that he isn't to fault. Morrie isn't innocent, nor did mean to imply he was, so that is on me. What I was kinda aiming for I guess was the idea that our perception of morality is very skewed and I don't believe it's something that we can fully grasp. Things being "good" or "bad" outside of God quickly becomes a grey area if too much thought is applied to the situation (especially in the subjective case). I guess I was meaning to apply the "everybody is bad" not to say that "Morrie isn't worse than anyone else here" but more that we aren't going to be able to pin him (or anybody else for that matter) down as inherently good or bad just because the scale that we measure these things on isn't concrete in the situation.Bob wrote:I think this point may be overstated a bit (incidentally, I don't think I did say that, although I did express, in one draft, that Emily isn't perfect (being only human)).
The fact that everybody has done wrong, in the sense of being sinners and deserving of God's judgment, does not mean that every action on earth is equivalent and has or should have the same consequence. The Bible states that you 'reap what you sow', and that rewards and penalties are given in appropriate measure. The Old Testament is given to us for our instruction, and in the Old Testament, there were different penalties and punishments for sin. Yes, everybody's sins are the same in that any sin is sufficient to separate us from God, that there is nothing we can do on our own to make up for it, and that the infinite value of Christ's sacrifice is sufficient to pay any price, but that doesn't mean that those sins have the exact same intrinsic 'value'.
What bothers me and gets me heated up about this in this case, I suppose, is the context of this discussion. If we were just talking about Morrie and his villainy, it's fair enough to say that we shouldn't judge him too harshly, because everybody has done wrong. In this conversation, though, the context is that some have suggested or implied that he didn't do wrong at all, and even that the people who opposed him were wrong. So, in this circumstance the argument comes off a little like saying 'everybody is bad, so Morrie isn't any worse than anyone else'. Yes, everybody is bad in some sense, but we understand that there is a tangible difference between a jaywalker and a murderer.
Yes to this. I really hope that Whit not offering even an apology is addressed later because it feels very intentionally left out. In a weird way though I kinda appreciate it because he has always been stubborn so it isn't completely out of character.ByeByeBrownie wrote: A simple "I'm sorry" from Whit would not have been difficult to fit into the dialogue, but it would have added SO MUCH, in my opinion. And I'm hoping we do finally get it somewhere down the line. I'm also REALLY hoping we don't end up with an "Emily needs to learn about forgiveness" episode.
