Re: The Ties that Bind
Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2014 1:35 am
Amen
-nods vigorously-Jonathan wrote:An important statement, considering the pains they've taken to alienate older fans in the last two years or so.Woody wrote:Using vague terms such as "tolerance" fogs up the moral of the story, making it only accessible to kids outside of your target age range.
Yes, Buck's character development was definitely a highlight for me. I don't know why, but Buck has grown on me more than Richard Maxwell ever did (though that may be because I was exposed to fans who had these inexplicable crushes on him before I had really gotten to know and appreciate his character). I felt real pity for Buck and a deep-seated desire for him to succeed, and I don't usually get invested in the "Bad Boy/Girl Becomes Atoner" characters.Christian A. wrote:I forgot that I didn't like Buck. Throughout the season he really grew on me, but in the scene where he explained to Camilla why she needed to be content with her upbringing and the way that her family loved her instead of coveting his life... it totally broke down any remaining dislike of his character that I was harboring. The lines were delivered so well, and the emotion in his voice was perfect, not feeling forced or scripted at all. That was one of my favorite scenes, outside of the several scenes that ended the season.
Ooh, yes! I forgot about how much I liked Wooton. Though I wasn't fond of the bloated Perilous Pen storyline, I did really enjoy Wooton's maturity and that someone else took over for him as the team's Cloudcuckoolander. It felt like a return to the Wooton we saw in "Wooing Wooton" and "The Highest Stakes" (which, in my opinion, were two of his best episodes).Christian A. wrote:I forgot that Wooton has been annoying the last few albums, due to his consistent identity as the provider of lame comic relief. Hadley took that role in this album, and it was a breath of fresh air. Sure, Wooton had his silly moments, but it wasn't overdone like it usually is; it felt like he was finally back in character. And his character was integral to the plot of the album, so he went through quite a bit of emotional turmoil and character development over the course of the 14-part episode. I couldn't be more happy with the more mature character that resulted.
I can only speak for myself, but I'm not complaining that the tension wasn't resolved so much as I'm complaining that it wasn't resolved well. It felt told rather than shown. If Olivia goes on a life-changing RoC experience, I want to see it and find out how that changed her perspective, not simply be informed that it did. I'd much rather have heard about that and seen some real character progression than have heard more melodrama about the Perilous Pen, honestly. =/ Camilla's was the only aspect of the storyline that felt naturally resolved, and considering that the thread was set up to include all of the Parkers, that's not a very satisfying ending to me. (I kind of wanted to explore David and Eva as busy parents, although I wouldn't want a rehash of "The Business of Busyness" out of it.)Christian A. wrote:Others complain that the "tension" thing was never really resolved. But what about after Camilla talks to Buck? Does she not leave him with a newfound appreciation for her family, tense and imperfect though they may be?
...Wow, I can't believe I didn't pick up on that! o_O Good catch.Christian A. wrote:(Am I the only one who recognized that the initials of the festival are pretty darn close to those of another association with similar values and aspirations? =P)
You say that like entertainment being pushed for young kids that does explicitly use those terms, or even definitions/portrayals of those terms (and we weren't given even that), doesn't exist. =/ I'm not talking about adult entertainment that kids just stumble upon or are allowed to watch because their parents don't care; I'm talking about material that is directly marketed to them. Kids are exposed to those specific terms at younger and younger ages, because our culture is trying to push to them that homosexuality is completely normal and is perfectly aligned with any moral code—including Christianity. Isn't AIO supposed to represent a counterpoint to our culture a much as it is a safe place for entertainment? (And it's not like there are no such things as parental warnings.)Christian A. wrote:Now we come to the plot that gave many fans the most grief this season. And, honestly, I don't understand why. I mean, I hear their arguments, but the arguments just don't make sense to me. This is a show for 8- to 12-year-olds. And many of the children in that target audience have younger siblings who are not quite that old. Do they need to hear the words "homosexuality," "gay," "lesbian," or "AIDS" being thrown around? Even if it would be okay for their older siblings? I don't think so.
Be that as it may, most people who push her agenda do not behave so obviously. Those who push the "tolerance and inclusivity" agenda tend to be much more subversive and do a much better job at convincing their audience than simply using words that sound nice and then behaving openly antagonistically when they don't immediately get their way. If you're going to have an antagonist who is true to life, shouldn't they behave more like a real person than like a strawman, since kids are going to be dealing with more real people than strawmen in everyday life?Christian A. wrote:Now, there's also the issue of whether or not Ms. Adelaide was caricatured. Meh, I suppose you could make that argument. There were certainly scenes where she was over-the-top. But I think there are people out there like her who are both inconsistent within their belief systems and also unaware of just how much their belief system affects them. So I don't think it was all together unrealistic.
I remember having a conversation with Marvin D. where he said something about AIDS and honestly, it threw me for a loop. I suspected AIDS, somewhere in the back of my mind, but I really didn't pick up on it. This is why being upfront about your points is helpful (though I suppose I could just be ditzy ).Christian A. wrote:I mean, come on, would you have ever seen it coming that AIO would feature a character with AIDS? Really?
Yes, I liked this part, as well. It reminded me, again, of "The Highest Stakes" while still feeling unique unto itself. It was definitely a great moment—not only for Wooton, but for the show itself, as it exemplified very well what sacrificial love means for how you live your life.Christian A. wrote:when Wooton confronts him about it..... I don't know what I was expecting, but I certainly wasn't expecting him to go back in with him and sell the artwork honestly to help Hadley pay his bills.
I think people wanted something more out of that storyline because Jason made such a fuss over Whit's health in "Life Expectancy" (and I think Whit ended up at one point acknowledging that he didn't feel too well, although I could be wrong), and they wanted to know if it was going to be really important with that kind of buildup—I think people were hoping for a "Mortal Coil" that they didn't get. (It is, of couse, worth noting that Jason fussed the way he did because Connie's mother had recently died and he was basically recalling the fact that Whit is still very mortal, but I think the expectation was still there anyway.) And when we didn't get a big "Whit's health" storyline, I think most people wanted an explanation like the one that you gave, but it wasn't ever officially diagnosed in-show, and so we were left to speculate.Christian A. wrote:(While I'm on the subject, by the way, I don't know what's up with you people who say that that situation was not resolved. Jason says to Whit, "You should have come in to see [Dr. Graham] days ago," and Jules makes a remark that she's certain by the looks of Whit that all the stress just got to his head. So I really think that's all it was... I'm not sure why people want something more
I think I can agree with this. I, too, would have found it more interesting to hear more about the Parkers than the Perilous Pen. I still feel like what we got was fairly satisfactory, though.TigerintheShadows wrote:I can only speak for myself, but I'm not complaining that the tension wasn't resolved so much as I'm complaining that it wasn't resolved well. It felt told rather than shown. If Olivia goes on a life-changing RoC experience, I want to see it and find out how that changed her perspective, not simply be informed that it did. I'd much rather have heard about that and seen some real character progression than have heard more melodrama about the Perilous Pen, honestly. =/ Camilla's was the only aspect of the storyline that felt naturally resolved, and considering that the thread was set up to include all of the Parkers, that's not a very satisfying ending to me. (I kind of wanted to explore David and Eva as busy parents, although I wouldn't want a rehash of "The Business of Busyness" out of it.)
I definitely get what you're saying. But I don't think this is necessarily true of all kids -- not even the majority of the audience that listens to AIO. I think a lot of them are in families that "shelter" them enough that maybe the most they've come across is a pair of men or women holding hands in the store. So AIO comes along and introduces similar concepts in order to give the parents some ideas about how to have conversations with their young kids about these issues. But it's not AIO's place to actually have the conversations, to use the explicit terms and explain them for the audience.TigerintheShadows wrote:You say that like entertainment being pushed for young kids that does explicitly use those terms, or even definitions/portrayals of those terms (and we weren't given even that), doesn't exist. =/ I'm not talking about adult entertainment that kids just stumble upon or are allowed to watch because their parents don't care; I'm talking about material that is directly marketed to them. Kids are exposed to those specific terms at younger and younger ages, because our culture is trying to push to them that homosexuality is completely normal and is perfectly aligned with any moral code—including Christianity. Isn't AIO supposed to represent a counterpoint to our culture a much as it is a safe place for entertainment? (And it's not like there are no such things as parental warnings.)
The fact that kids can hear about heavy stuff and comprehend it and perhaps "handle" it doesn't mean that they were ready for it. There are things that I learned about when I was in the 8-12 age range that I wish I hadn't learned about until I was much older. I "handled" it, but I wasn't mature enough to actually have my innocence violated in the ways that it was. I recall those DGL shows. And I also recall that most of my younger siblings were not allowed to listen to DGL most of the time when it was still airing on our local station. My parents decided that they'd rather gauge for themselves when their children were ready to be introduced to subjects like those, rather than letting people who didn't know their children make those decisions for them. Perhaps the use of the word "homosexuality" wouldn't have been catastrophic. But I feel like there would have been a fair amount of backlash -- just like there was with "Pamela Has a Problem." I think Paul McCusker erred on the side of caution, and I think he was wise to do so.TigerintheShadows wrote:It's been my experience not only that kids can handle heavy stuff, but that people who produce heavy stuff know this. I remember when Down Gilead Lane did a pretty blunt episode about pornography that I listened to and understood when I was eight, and the same show did several episodes that discussed drinking and drunk driving. These shows have the same target demographics (honestly, I think DGL tended to skew younger than AIO), so honest portrayals of these types of issues are not above the heads of children. And as I have said before, controversial issues are not unheard of for AIO, either, so I doubt whether a little more upfrontness about this particular topic would have been a catastrophe.
I can't make myself disagree with this. I suppose I would have liked to see a little less of a strawman. But I felt like she changed enough by the end that it made up for a little of the outlandishness of her character earlier on in the season.TigerintheShadows wrote:Be that as it may, most people who push her agenda do not behave so obviously. Those who push the "tolerance and inclusivity" agenda tend to be much more subversive and do a much better job at convincing their audience than simply using words that sound nice and then behaving openly antagonistically when they don't immediately get their way. If you're going to have an antagonist who is true to life, shouldn't they behave more like a real person than like a strawman, since kids are going to be dealing with more real people than strawmen in everyday life?
That's surprising to me, because I thought it was obvious from the first time we were introduced to the character. And then it was reinforced when Randall says that his body is riddled with things that are trying to destroy him. I thought that made it pretty clear, but, obviously, the writers were trying to be vague, so I can see why you didn't pick up on it.TigerintheShadows wrote:I remember having a conversation with Marvin D. where he said something about AIDS and honestly, it threw me for a loop. I suspected AIDS, somewhere in the back of my mind, but I really didn't pick up on it. This is why being upfront about your points is helpful (though I suppose I could just be ditzy ).
True. It could have been stated more explicitly than it was.TigerintheShadows wrote:I think people wanted something more out of that storyline because Jason made such a fuss over Whit's health in "Life Expectancy" (and I think Whit ended up at one point acknowledging that he didn't feel too well, although I could be wrong), and they wanted to know if it was going to be really important with that kind of buildup—I think people were hoping for a "Mortal Coil" that they didn't get. (It is, of couse, worth noting that Jason fussed the way he did because Connie's mother had recently died and he was basically recalling the fact that Whit is still very mortal, but I think the expectation was still there anyway.) And when we didn't get a big "Whit's health" storyline, I think most people wanted an explanation like the one that you gave, but it wasn't ever officially diagnosed in-show, and so we were left to speculate.
I definitely understand your complaints in these areas. Ultimately, though, I think things were kept the way they were simply because of the target audience. Kids are going to find the Perilous Pen plotline more interesting than a drawn-out storyline about the Parker family tension. They're more entertained by Jay and the zombies than by Ms. Adelaide. That's what most of this comes down to. I think Mr. McCusker did as much as he could to emphasize family in as many ways as he could without losing the attention of the average 8- to 12-year-old. And I don't think we can fault him for that. It is a kids' show, after all.TigerintheShadows wrote:Overall, I personally think that the album could have improved itself significantly if we had seen more attention paid to the real struggles of the Parker family to coalesce, dealt with a more complex and human Ms. Adelaide (who was portrayed as such throughout and not as "the bad guy"; there were some points where all she needed was a mustache to twirl), diminished the TV show plot (I mean, seriously, what was the point of Jay becoming a TV star? What did that add thematically?), and erased the Perilous Pen storyline entirely and stuck with the Sleuth Family Robinson, dealing with Jules differently (somehow). To me, that would have helped the "family" theme actually shine instead of being overshadowed by what I consider to be a plotline of nebulous relevance.
Yes, we can, because it's not impossible as demonstrated by past precedent. The Straussberg separation arc, with the exception of "Only By His Grace" (which contained the Grady story, which, if the ToO thread is to be believed, most people found unappealing), was a story unto itself, without having to be injected with something "for the kids" to keep it entertaining. That arc was one of the best that the show has ever done, in my opinion, and it was not exactly slice-of-life kids' show stuff. The same can be said for "The Highest Stakes" and "The Chosen One". It isn't impossible to discuss family while keeping it enjoyable for kids without the shameless pandering that I think you're implying that they have to do.Christian A. wrote:Kids are going to find the Perilous Pen plotline more interesting than a drawn-out storyline about the Parker family tension. They're more entertained by Jay and the zombies than by Ms. Adelaide. That's what most of this comes down to. I think Mr. McCusker did as much as he could to emphasize family in as many ways as he could without losing the attention of the average 8- to 12-year-old. And I don't think we can fault him for that.
Maybe, and maybe not. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, because no matter how sheltered a child is, they are going to see more and more of the normalization of homosexuality in our culture. Unless you are a parent whose children remain entirely insulated from the world, you are going to see it pushed further and further, no matter what you let your child watch or read. It will become inescapable in the near future. I think that Christian entertainment that seeks to counter that should be willing to step on some toes...but perhaps I'm saying that as someone who really isn't afraid at all to be as blunt as possible.Christian A. wrote:But I don't think this is necessarily true of all kids -- not even the majority of the audience that listens to AIO. I think a lot of them are in families that "shelter" them enough that maybe the most they've come across is a pair of men or women holding hands in the store. So AIO comes along and introduces similar concepts in order to give the parents some ideas about how to have conversations with their young kids about these issues. But it's not AIO's place to actually have the conversations, to use the explicit terms and explain them for the audience.
But that's entirely dependent on how you learned of those things—was it in a relatively safe environment, through something that had your best interests at heart, or was it through a neutral-at-best-but-most-likely-malicious source? I highly doubt that they couldn't have been very clear about what they were talking about and yet still addressed the subject tastefully; when I ask for explicitness, I'm just asking that they tell us what they're talking about instead of wearing the kid gloves, not that they tell us all of the ins and outs of homo/bi/transsexuality.Christian A. wrote:The fact that kids can hear about heavy stuff and comprehend it and perhaps "handle" it doesn't mean that they were ready for it. There are things that I learned about when I was in the 8-12 age range that I wish I hadn't learned about until I was much older. I "handled" it, but I wasn't mature enough to actually have my innocence violated in the ways that it was.
I was unaware of the whole gay thing clear until I was thirteen, and my parents never lied to me. They simply felt no obligation to tell me something somewhat dreadful just because a lot of people do it. The amount of people doing something has no affect on how appropriate it is for a kid to hear.Marvin D. wrote:... hardly anyone is so sheltered that they haven't heard the phrase "gay marriage." If they're 10, and they haven't, then I'm of the firm belief that they're not just being "sheltered"--they're being lied to, because that's not the world.
Kids of any age want entertainment to be entertaining. There was a lot of serious dialogue, why not take some time off for wit? It was amusing, the investigation sequence, and brief. You speak as if it was given inordinate attention. It was barely ten minutes! Aslo, keep in mind, this is like having 14 episodes in one. Normally, we'd have a comedy somewhere in there.Marvin D. wrote:hat's a double standard. It's somehow all right to treat them like 21st-century kids who have ever-shortening attention spans, the media-addicted, hyperactive sorts of kids. .and then pretend that they're not when it comes to bringing up a fairly neutral word like gay marriage. You can have one or the other, but you can't have both. I'm setting up a dichotomy here, and it would seem that you're arguing that it's somehow possible to treat kids almost as two different groups: the "modern" kid who spends hours watching cartoons and running wild (which would mean that they'd probably have been introduced to homosexuality at some basic level), or the "old-fashioned," homeschooled, conservative kid. You can't have both. And you're not giving kids nearly enough credit or looking at the world very realistically.
If what I'm seeing on tumblr and elsewhere is any indication, they're not above such things when faced with someone they disagree with. But yeah, on the whole, LGBT advocates tend to be rather nice, polite people who raise legitimate questions, and often even use the Bible to justify their beliefs. (Now that I think about it, that would have been nice to see—someone using the Bible to justify what they have to say. Most of the kids whose parents discuss with them that homosexuality is not okay will be told so almost exclusively on Biblical grounds, and the awareness of how LGBT activists like to twist the Bible to make it sound like being homo/bi/transsexual is perfectly fine would be valuable. Their parents can tell them this, of course, but it's definitely something that the show could have done without having to be explicit, if that's really what they wanted.)Marvin D. wrote:that the LGBT advocates of the world spew vitriol and hatred in reality.
PF, aren't you in college now? When you (and I, too, since I think we are relatively close in age) were thirteen, the LGBT movement wasn't nearly as big a deal as it is now, largely because major gains hadn't been made then that forced people to rethink their positions (for example, DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell were both still enacted policies five or six years ago, and many Americans didn't see what was wrong with that until the Supreme Court struck down DOMA and President Obama repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell). Advocacy still existed, certainly, but the movement hadn't gained the kind of traction even five or six years ago that it has today; it wasn't nearly as in-your-face. It was a common assertion that homosexuality wasn't something that was introduced to children; it mostly existed on adult-aimed primetime TV, which kids aren't expected to watch.Pound Foolish wrote:I was unaware of the whole gay thing clear until I was thirteen
That's Shake It Up!, Marvin. It's Disney, not Taylor Swift. How dare you not know the name of a show I know you watched religiously?Marvin D. wrote:Shake it Off!
Marvin D. wrote:WAIT HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT I WATCHED SHAKE IT UP?!
Don't you lie to me; I know you and your cousin developed a friendship over cheesy Disney Channel Kid Coms.Marvin D. wrote:My 9-year old cousin used to watch it, along with Jessie and Austin and Ally and Shake it Off! and whatnot.