Esmeralda
Charmed
S2 "What If...?" Fan Fic Winner
Twenty Years Gone....But Never Forgotten.
Posts: 21,903
|
Post by Esmeralda on Dec 19, 2014 8:26:02 GMT -5
Just keep in mind that all three sisters were given pendants. That means Chris murdered three Valkyries. That, and what they did to Darryl, is all part of why that's my least-favorite season premiere and why I hate Season Six - the way the sisters changed is just disgusting.
|
|
Nimue
Familiar
Posts: 606
|
Post by Nimue on Dec 19, 2014 9:32:42 GMT -5
One of the things I really wanted to see, but never did, was more about the Warren family, about their lives, powers... More about Melinda's life before she was burned at the stake, about her daughter Prudence, about Laura, Astrid, Helena, Grace... The writers had a great chance at creating some interesting story lines but for whatever reason they didn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2014 9:43:18 GMT -5
One of the things I really wanted to see, but never did, was more about the Warren family, about their lives, powers... More about Melinda's life before she was burned at the stake, about her daughter Prudence, about Laura, Astrid, Helena, Grace... The writers had a great chance at creating some interesting story lines but for whatever reason they didn't. Couldn't agree more. For a show that was supposed to be focused so much on family, the sisters really didn't ever learn much about their witch ancestors. I'd have loved more 'Pardon My Past'/'All Halliwells Eve' type episodes.
|
|
Esmeralda
Charmed
S2 "What If...?" Fan Fic Winner
Twenty Years Gone....But Never Forgotten.
Posts: 21,903
|
Post by Esmeralda on Dec 19, 2014 10:44:17 GMT -5
Me, too. Especially if Sheryl J. Anderson wrote them. She did the best job of writing the Charmed Ones as sisters who happened to be witches.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2014 21:37:06 GMT -5
Just keep in mind that all three sisters were given pendants. That means Chris murdered three Valkyries. That, and what they did to Darryl, is all part of why that's my least-favorite season premiere and why I hate Season Six - the way the sisters changed is just disgusting. Good point, so Chris is even worse than I initially thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2014 21:38:18 GMT -5
Me, too. Especially if Sheryl J. Anderson wrote them. She did the best job of writing the Charmed Ones as sisters who happened to be witches. I agree, I feel she really understood the sisterly dynamic and how the PO3 was the metaphor for that, perhaps even better than Burge and definitely better than Kern.
|
|
Nimue
Familiar
Posts: 606
|
Post by Nimue on Dec 20, 2014 2:43:17 GMT -5
Me, too. Especially if Sheryl J. Anderson wrote them. She did the best job of writing the Charmed Ones as sisters who happened to be witches. I love the episodes she wrote, some of the best in the show, and she would have done a great job further exploring the family. It's a pity she didn't stay after season 3.
|
|
Nimue
Familiar
Posts: 606
|
Post by Nimue on Dec 20, 2014 2:44:19 GMT -5
Me, too. Especially if Sheryl J. Anderson wrote them. She did the best job of writing the Charmed Ones as sisters who happened to be witches. I agree, I feel she really understood the sisterly dynamic and how the PO3 was the metaphor for that, perhaps even better than Burge and definitely better than Kern. Why do you think she understood the sisterly dynamic better than Burge? Burge did have two older sisters, didn't she?
|
|
Esmeralda
Charmed
S2 "What If...?" Fan Fic Winner
Twenty Years Gone....But Never Forgotten.
Posts: 21,903
|
Post by Esmeralda on Dec 20, 2014 7:54:53 GMT -5
I agree, I feel she really understood the sisterly dynamic and how the PO3 was the metaphor for that, perhaps even better than Burge and definitely better than Kern. Why do you think she understood the sisterly dynamic better than Burge? Burge did have two older sisters, didn't she? Yes, she did, and I wonder if that might have been part of it. I often wonder if like Prue if Connie's oldest sister had to take care of the family, because when she writes Prue, it's when Prue treats her sisters more like kids than like her sisters - like she's better than them, that they'd be nothing without her, something I get from most of the other writers, part of the reason why so many fans didn't like Prue. I never get that feeling with Sheryl's Prue. She was the oldest and the leader, but you really got the feeling that she looked at her younger sisters as equals, and more than equals, also friends. That's also how I feel towards the other two. That feeling of friends as well as sisters wasn't something that came through very often, the way it hardly came through with the second set at all. I've often wondered if Sheryl left when Shannen was fired because she liked the character of Prue so much - and I liked Prue when Sheryl wrote her, just like I liked Piper and Phoebe (and Leo and Darryl) when she wrote them.
|
|
Nimue
Familiar
Posts: 606
|
Post by Nimue on Dec 20, 2014 8:27:09 GMT -5
Why do you think she understood the sisterly dynamic better than Burge? Burge did have two older sisters, didn't she? Yes, she did, and I wonder if that might have been part of it. I often wonder if like Prue if Connie's oldest sister had to take care of the family, because when she writes Prue, it's when Prue treats her sisters more like kids than like her sisters - like she's better than them, that they'd be nothing without her, something I get from most of the other writers, part of the reason why so many fans didn't like Prue. I never get that feeling with Sheryl's Prue. She was the oldest and the leader, but you really got the feeling that she looked at her younger sisters as equals, and more than equals, also friends. That's also how I feel towards the other two. That feeling of friends as well as sisters wasn't something that came through very often, the way it hardly came through with the second set at all. I've often wondered if Sheryl left when Shannen was fired because she liked the character of Prue so much - and I liked Prue when Sheryl wrote her, just like I liked Piper and Phoebe (and Leo and Darryl) when she wrote them. Ah, ok, thanks for explaining, I understand now. If that's the case then Constance Burge was obviously very biased when she wrote certain episodes.
|
|
Esmeralda
Charmed
S2 "What If...?" Fan Fic Winner
Twenty Years Gone....But Never Forgotten.
Posts: 21,903
|
Post by Esmeralda on Dec 20, 2014 9:39:31 GMT -5
Yes, she did, and I wonder if that might have been part of it. I often wonder if like Prue if Connie's oldest sister had to take care of the family, because when she writes Prue, it's when Prue treats her sisters more like kids than like her sisters - like she's better than them, that they'd be nothing without her, something I get from most of the other writers, part of the reason why so many fans didn't like Prue. I never get that feeling with Sheryl's Prue. She was the oldest and the leader, but you really got the feeling that she looked at her younger sisters as equals, and more than equals, also friends. That's also how I feel towards the other two. That feeling of friends as well as sisters wasn't something that came through very often, the way it hardly came through with the second set at all. I've often wondered if Sheryl left when Shannen was fired because she liked the character of Prue so much - and I liked Prue when Sheryl wrote her, just like I liked Piper and Phoebe (and Leo and Darryl) when she wrote them. Ah, ok, thanks for explaining, I understand now. If that's the case then Constance Burge was obviously very biased when she wrote certain episodes. Well, as I said, that's my guess - obviously I don't know for sure. I'm just basing it on my reactions towards Prue when different writers wrote her. I was very surprised during my latest re-watch to discover that when Connie Burge wrote the episodes, I didn't like Prue. (I was writing out reviews after watching each episode and would include the writers - it was when I first discovered how much I liked Sheryl J. Anderson as a Charmed writer.) And who knows? Maybe they were closer to the truth - the old idea of sibling rivalry which came through very clearly in the other sets but not Sheryl's. So maybe Sheryl *doesn't* have siblings, so she could just write them as friends or how she thinks sisters should be written. I just know I wish my sisters and me had the relationship that hers do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2014 12:54:21 GMT -5
I pretty much agree with Es. I didn't like Prue so much when she played the authoritative mother. I mean, the whole idea of Prue helping 'raise' the other two was kind of dumb, she was only about three years older than Piper. It would've been more believable had she been 5 years old than Piper and 7 years old than Phoebe. I liked them more as a unit who helped each other out collectively.
|
|
ljones
Whitelighter
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by ljones on Dec 31, 2014 14:24:27 GMT -5
"Not enough for my liking. Phoebe excepted him back within a couple of episodes. She did kick him out after Jenna rightly but then decided he was okay again because of a spell. I think Prue was right, how does a few good deeds erase a century of evil and murder?"
It doesn't. And no amount of good deeds can erase ONE ACT OF EVIL, let alone many. Which means the Halliwells, Chris and Leo should also be permanently judged. Or . . . Cole, Leo and the Halliwells could simply acknowledge they had done wrong and try to avoid giving in to evil in the future. Even if this takes many attempts.
If you want to judge Cole as beyond redemption for his past, fine. But if you do that, you might as harbor the same attitude toward the Halliwells and Leo. Because they have given into evil as well. If you don't believe, I suggest you watch the series again.
|
|
|
Post by Chrisaholic on Jan 1, 2015 8:18:17 GMT -5
I think the sentence "It's not your fault" was used a bit too much in the show, starting maybe right with S4. In the later seasons, especially S8, you heard it in nearly every episode. That was my feeling at least.
|
|
|
Post by Melinda Halliwell on Jan 1, 2015 10:52:29 GMT -5
Of course it was some people's faults what they did especially with Phoebe and her baby quest using her powers thing for e.g.
They thought they were so high and mighty and got away with many things that they weren't wrong about anything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 17:00:12 GMT -5
"Not enough for my liking. Phoebe excepted him back within a couple of episodes. She did kick him out after Jenna rightly but then decided he was okay again because of a spell. I think Prue was right, how does a few good deeds erase a century of evil and murder?"It doesn't. And no amount of good deeds can erase ONE ACT OF EVIL, let alone many. Which means the Halliwells, Chris and Leo should also be permanently judged. Or . . . Cole, Leo and the Halliwells could simply acknowledge they had done wrong and try to avoid giving in to evil in the future. Even if this takes many attempts. If you want to judge Cole as beyond redemption for his past, fine. But if you do that, you might as harbor the same attitude toward the Halliwells and Leo. Because they have given into evil as well. If you don't believe, I suggest you watch the series again. Murder in the show isn't always 'evil', sometimes it is justifiable. After all, the sisters 'murder' demons and warlocks in every episode. Thus, I think Leo killing Gideon and the Valkyries was justified. The only time it wasn't justified was when he killed Zola. But even then, the other Elders attempted to kill/recycle him as well, so they are hypocrites for admonishing him for killing Gideon. The only time the sisters came close to being involved in murdering an Innocent was Paige and Phoebe with Rick, which I do judge them for that - and he wasn't even an 'Innocent'. As for the Jenkinses, yes they were human but AGAIN they were ready to murder the sisters, so it was self-defence. I think at that point none of those five girls were "good" witches anymore, nor had any of them crossed the boundary to "evil" yet. But all of these examples were in self-defence and NOT the same thing as judging Cole by any means. Cole murdered defenceless, Innocent humans and witches for 100 years. And excusing his behaviour on behalf of him having a 'good', human side is preposterous. There is such a thing as a evil human. That's all I was trying to say - 100 years of Belthazor's/Cole's murder and bad karma v. The Halliwells use of magic for personal gain/self-defence. Hm, I know who I would judge more. The only Halliwell who should be judged is Chris, for murdering innocent Valkyries for their pendants. If you're going to let your obsession with Cole blind you from reason, perhaps it's you who ought to give the series another watch, not me.
|
|
Esmeralda
Charmed
S2 "What If...?" Fan Fic Winner
Twenty Years Gone....But Never Forgotten.
Posts: 21,903
|
Post by Esmeralda on Jan 1, 2015 18:58:29 GMT -5
I don't find Leo murdering Gideon as justifiable - that fits in the "The wrong thing done for the right reason is still the wrong thing" category. Murdering demons and warlocks is vanquishing - murdering is killing beings who aren't inherently evil, which warlocks and demons were on this show. Leo did not vanquish Gideon with a spell or a potion - he murdered him, just like Gideon murdered Chris.. Especially because that Chris wasn't even Leo's own son, but the son of a totally different Piper and Leo - that Leo's son was just being born, there was no justification, especially because he didn't do it in order to try to regain balance between the two worlds (if that was the case, we should've seen Bad Gideon saving Bad Chris from Bad Leo at the same time). At least Leo was punished (but more because he chose the wrong side in the fight between the Elders and the Avatars - I won't say Good vs Evil - there was nothing Good about those Elders and nothing particularly evil about those Avatars- just misguided, just like Gideon) not because Leo murdered. The whole idea behind that entire episode (like most Charmed finales written by Brad Kern) made no sense.
If you think that what Leo did was justifiable, then so was what Phoebe and Paige did to Rick or what Chris did to the Valkyries, or, for matter, what P, Bowen and P. Baxter did to P. Russell or what the Charmed Ones did to the Jenkinses (and what the Jenkinses did to the Charmed Ones) during "Kill Billie, Vol. 2 - it means you believe that ends justify the means rather than the wrong things done for the right reasons are still wrong. And since so much of Charmed was written to say that ends do justify the means, I truly wish that "Morality Bites", my favorite episode had never been aired - then I could accept all of these as okay. As is, they merely disgust me.
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse Christian on Jan 1, 2015 20:59:31 GMT -5
I'd like to step in for a second. I think Leo killing Gideon and the Valkyries was justified. Even the show itself disagrees with that assertion. Let's start with the Valkyries. - While not condemned because he did so protecting the sisters from their assault, his sudden attack of the two Valkyries that went after them there is shown through reactions as a startling example of how much being forced to live as a gladiator changed him, and not necessarily for the better in their eyes.
- The very next episode after this has Leo defending the Valkyries as a whole to the sisters because of their mission as well as openly stating that they're not the ones who put him in that cage to begin with.
- The way Chris killed Leysa to get her pendant was depicted on the show as an act of cold blood. This, combined with the other two pendants and the implication there in that he either got back to Valhalla alone and stole the pendants of the two Valkyries slain by Leo or that he killed two other Valkyries of his own the same way he got her, is demonstrated as a sign of his shadiness.
- In contrast to the unhesitant killings they suffer at the hands of our heroes, the Valkyries are never seen killing anyone. They do talk about being willing to "take care of" the Charmed Ones if they have to, but that's because of the sisters deliberately infiltrating Valhalla and becoming a risk to their secret—an understandable reaction, albeit equally unjustified, considering they've lost 3-5 of their number thanks to all this Halliwell drama. That said, this plan is swiftly abandoned in horror once they discover their warriors are lost in confusion and killing a mass of innocents in San Francisco, and after working together with Piper to bring the warriors back, then receiving her assurance that their secret isn't getting squealed, the two sides end up coming away on good terms.
Pretty sure this establishes that the Valkyries are considered by the show to not be inherently worth vanquishing for arbitrary reasons. Then there's Leo's killing of Gideon. It's NOT justified because his heart is NOT in the right place when he does this. It's an act of great evil, committed out of cold-blooded merciless vengeance for the murder of his future incarnation's second son and the kidnapping of his own firstborn. The show explicitly spells out that it has to be an act of great evil in order for the balance between the yin and yang worlds to be restored. Furthermore, with his paranoia baited by Barbas into denying his guilty conscience, he descends further and further into insanity following this event up to the point where he ends up joining the Avatars, and in the fallout from that ordeal his fate is ultimately placed in the hands of a manipulated "test" from Odin to determine if he's to leave either his family or the Elders. His killing Gideon solved the plot of the season 6 finale because it was evil, and it wound up starting a chain reaction in season 7 which culminated in the loss of his "wings" in a literal fall from grace. That's the show talking and it's SCREAMING "Nope, not justified." Cole murdered defenceless, Innocent humans and witches for 100 years. And excusing his behaviour on behalf of him having a 'good', human side is prepostour. Except that's not ljones' position whatsoever. As I understand it, and she can correct me if I'm wrong, her position is that Charmed's general depiction of demons as being an inherently evil species is in itself flawed on principle according to Wicca and other beliefs that the show draws a base from as well as her own storytelling preferences, and that the existence of certain inconsistencies and exceptions to the rule (especially Cole in his attempted face turn) which are never subsequently used to inform the rule as a non-absolute—as well as the Halliwells' increasing propensity for getting away with decidedly non-heroic behavior throughout the course of the show—only prove her case. My stance on that subject? The evil species rule itself is not inherently flawed or bigoted, it's a storytelling device used to frame the setting and conflict of countless fantasy stories. It can be taken in any number of directions ranging from solid and absolute to generally true with exceptions even down to being gradually deconstructed. The only catch is the route needs to be consistent and informed enough that it's clear the show knows what it's doing, and the characters that are supposed to be our heroes should actually act the part at least relative to their universe and get hit with consequences when they don't—especially if they live by an established code which dictates it, such as what we got in "Morality Bites".
|
|
Esmeralda
Charmed
S2 "What If...?" Fan Fic Winner
Twenty Years Gone....But Never Forgotten.
Posts: 21,903
|
Post by Esmeralda on Jan 2, 2015 0:31:32 GMT -5
I'd like to step in for a second. Sure! I always like to see your reactions. I agree completely totally, which was Charmed's biggest problem - it didn't stick to its own rules. For it to say that the wrong thing done for the right reason is still the wrong thing and then just a few episodes later say that it's perfectly AOK for P. Bowen and P. Baxter to murder P. Russell because she had turned evil shows the main inconsistency . And because so many of the episodes did seem to imply, if not just come right out and say that in the Charmed's version of Good vs. Evil (like most fantasy series, no matter if that's the way things should be or shouldn't be) that the rule was indeed that ends justify the means, so the true inconsistency was "Morality Bites". So back to the original question, what I would've liked to have seen changed would be for my favorite episode, "Morality Bites", to have never been aired. Then all of these things would be justified in the Charmedverse, even if they wouldn't be in the real world.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2015 16:40:44 GMT -5
I don't find Leo murdering Gideon as justifiable - that fits in the "The wrong thing done for the right reason is still the wrong thing" category. Murdering demons and warlocks is vanquishing - murdering is killing beings who aren't inherently evil, which warlocks and demons were on this show. Leo did not vanquish Gideon with a spell or a potion - he murdered him, just like Gideon murdered Chris.. Especially because that Chris wasn't even Leo's own son, but the son of a totally different Piper and Leo - that Leo's son was just being born, there was no justification, especially because he didn't do it in order to try to regain balance between the two worlds (if that was the case, we should've seen Bad Gideon saving Bad Chris from Bad Leo at the same time). At least Leo was punished (but more because he chose the wrong side in the fight between the Elders and the Avatars - I won't say Good vs Evil - there was nothing Good about those Elders and nothing particularly evil about those Avatars- just misguided, just like Gideon) not because Leo murdered. The whole idea behind that entire episode (like most Charmed finales written by Brad Kern) made no sense. If you think that what Leo did was justifiable, then so was what Phoebe and Paige did to Rick or what Chris did to the Valkyries, or, for matter, what P, Bowen and P. Baxter did to P. Russell or what the Charmed Ones did to the Jenkinses (and what the Jenkinses did to the Charmed Ones) during "Kill Billie, Vol. 2 - it means you believe that ends justify the means rather than the wrong things done for the right reasons are still wrong. And since so much of Charmed was written to say that ends do justify the means, I truly wish that "Morality Bites", my favorite episode had never been aired - then I could accept all of these as okay. As is, they merely disgust me. Still disagree. Phoebe was quite right in saying it was 'the wrong thing done for the right right reason' for her to kill Kal Greene, because he'd already done murdered her friend and she decided to take his justice into her own hands, whereas Gideon had not killed Wyatt yet, thus it only makes sense he would kill him to protect Wyatt. I know he said, '... because you murdered my son', and meant Chris, but had Chris not been killed, he'd still have killed him to protect Wyatt. I mean, what was the alternative - let his child be murdered and keep the Good/Evil Mirror Worlds out of balance forever? I suppose he could've committed a different 'Great Evil', but that would've required him to kill someone else, most possible an Innocent that he didn't have a grievance with. Now that would be unjustifiable. And it in no way compares to what Paige and Phoebe did to Rick in my mind, they facilitated his murder purely because they couldn't be bothered to freeze him/orb his gun away or in someway apprehend him and send him back to jail. Rick was never a genuine threat to him, not like Gideon was. They only needed him alive to locate Ramona, and then promptly disposed of him. Chris killing the Valkyries is completely different. He did so selfishly and cold-heartedly, purely to not get caught out by the sisters and have them believe that he wanted to save Leo. As for P. Baxter and P. Bowen, I was never comfortable with their murdering P. Russell, they could've easily dis-empowered her. Same goes for the Jenkins, which I said earlier, by S8, I didn't consider the Halliwells or the Jenkinses to be good witches. I only believe the end justifies the means in extreme circumstances, like if the characters or their loved ones are in danger, as most people probably would. I don't buy the argument that, 'witches are human so you can't kill them because that's murder', whereas murdering warlocks (former witches) and demons is always okay just because they were born that way, regardless of how they've used their magic.
|
|