ljones
Whitelighter
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by ljones on Apr 12, 2008 0:07:36 GMT -5
I never understood why the sisters worried about Cole becoming evil, considering that their own chances of becoming evil were also pretty strong.
|
|
pubesy
Witch
"If I could dream at all, it would be about you. And I'm not ashamed of it." - Edward Cullen
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by pubesy on Apr 12, 2008 2:25:30 GMT -5
but even stronger with cole around!
it wasn't that he would "turn" all of them evil persay. it was the risk that he would become evil again
|
|
|
|
Post by whitelightertony on Apr 12, 2008 3:51:41 GMT -5
Because half of Cole's consciousness/persona/whatever-you-want-to-call-it was the entity known as "Belthazar," who was clearly out to make trouble... And once Belthazar was vanquished, the Charmed Ones didn't have enough faith in Cole that he could make his own choices.  |
|
ljones
Whitelighter
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by ljones on Apr 15, 2008 0:09:30 GMT -5
I think that Coop's potential for evil was just as strong as Cole or the Charmed Ones'. As far as I'm concerned, everyone has a 50-50 chance for good or evil. To say otherwise, based upon what an individual is just seems folly to me.
Really? Considering that the sisters had committed some of their worst acts after Cole had been vanquished, I find that hard to believe that their potential for evil was stronger when he was around.
|
|
pubesy
Witch
"If I could dream at all, it would be about you. And I'm not ashamed of it." - Edward Cullen
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by pubesy on Apr 15, 2008 2:49:58 GMT -5
really? so what you are saying is a demonic being surrounded by other demonic beings has the exact same likeliness as a saint surrounded by other saints?
when i made that statement i was not just going by WHAT cole was (being a demon...the most powerful demon out there), it was also based on cole's history and personality, a personality which is attracted to power, whether he wants to be attracted to it or not.
how about before cole was around? you could say cole influenced them to commit those acts.......but even i would say that statement would be a bit much.
|
|
ljones
Whitelighter
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by ljones on Apr 16, 2008 1:05:25 GMT -5
To me, being demonic does not equal to being one-dimensionally evil. I don't care what the show said . . . I didn't agree with its portrayal of demons. I found it one-dimensional. Anyone or any being can either become good, evil or otherwise. It all depends upon the choices one makes. Making choices is not exclusive to humans.
Nor do I consider Coop a saint. To me, he was another magical being or individual with the 50-50 chance of choosing any path.
Or you could not. Is this what you're doing? Using Cole as a scapegoat for the sisters' own evil acts?
|
|
pubesy
Witch
"If I could dream at all, it would be about you. And I'm not ashamed of it." - Edward Cullen
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by pubesy on Apr 16, 2008 7:14:20 GMT -5
ok, ljones, you dont HAVE to agree with the demonic portrayal of demons in charmed.
but still, the statement is still relevant.
substitute demon with criminal, or "bad guy"
a person who has committed a crime before, who is surrounded by other criminals has a much greater chance of committing a crime than a law abiding citizen surrounded by other citizens?
better?
|
|
|
|
Post by whitelightertony on Apr 17, 2008 3:21:20 GMT -5
Well, I disagree with your view.
Coop wasn't mortal...he was a cupid. And, according to the mythology of the Charmedverse, cupids are disposed to fight on the side of Good.
Coop certainly could have chosen to work for Evil if personal circumstances in his life had pushed him that far...but from birth, he was predisposed toward Good in a way much more evident than the Charmed Ones or any other witch.
Ljones, there is simply no evidence for your blanket "50/50" theory, based on what we've seen on the show.
|
|
ljones
Whitelighter
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by ljones on Apr 17, 2008 12:03:26 GMT -5
There is no real guarantee of that. Considering the Halliwells' own belief of their goodness, which the show managed to have them point out in so many episodes, it is interesting that they managed to commit a good number of crimes, themselves. And the worst part is that the series only focused on their minor mistakes and brushed aside or excused some of their worst acts.
Having an exemplary past does not guarantee that one is going to remain "good" until the end of his or her life. Having a dark past does not guarantee that person will remain on a dubious past for the rest of his or her life. There are just no guarantees. Why wasn't the show able to consider this?
The problem with the Halliwells (and the writers) is that they tend to believe otherwise. The only time any of the sisters had confronted their potential for real evil occurred in "Death Takes a Halliwell". And it was Prue who ended up facing her real potential for evil. What made it interesting is that this potential came from her own emotions and inner darkness, and not some spell or marriage to a demon or warlock.
Yes, the other sisters have acknowledge their inner darkness, but always on a limited level. They are willing to acknowledge that they have "a little darkness", but no potential for true evil.
That doesn't mean anything. Charmedverse have said the same of witches and whitelighters . . . and end up proving otherwise with the Halliwells, Leo, Wyatt, Chris and Gideon. As for the whole "disposed to fight on the side of Good" . . . I consider that a lot of hogwash and an example of the writers' inability to portray their characters - all of them - in an ambiguous light.
Coop seemed nothing more to me than the writers' poor attempt to dump some fairy tale ending on Phoebe and not allow her to wrestle with her own potential for ambiguity with a partner who can be equally ambiguous. It was a poor attempt to re-visit what she had with Cole . . . especially since the show was in the second half of its last season.
And being Cupid or a symbol of Love should not guarantee that one is basically good. Love does not always mean goodness or light. Love can have both a positive and negative effect on anyone - and on an equal level.
|
|
pubesy
Witch
"If I could dream at all, it would be about you. And I'm not ashamed of it." - Edward Cullen
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by pubesy on Apr 17, 2008 23:46:27 GMT -5
There is no real guarantee of that. Considering the Halliwells' own belief of their goodness, which the show managed to have them point out in so many episodes, it is interesting that they managed to commit a good number of crimes, themselves. Having an exemplary past does not guarantee that one is going to remain "good" until the end of his or her life. Having a dark past does not guarantee that person will remain on a dubious past for the rest of his or her life. There are just no guarantees. Why wasn't the show able to consider this? the statement i was making befor was a general statement, and not referring specifically to the charmed ones. to deny that a gang of criminals has a greater chance of commiting a crime than a group of nunns is incredibly folly. in terms of charmed sure, the girls were witches, but they were human as well. humans make mistakes. it is not fair to hold them accountable for every single little booboo they commit, as you suggest. i am glad the show did not do this. Sure, hold them accountable for big mistakes, ie. changing the world, or creating piper a dream date, but not smaller things. But even then, the smaller personal gain spells usually backfired, hence they got their karma concequences anyway. coop was a cupid. in terms of mythology, a cupid is a saint, i am pretty sure (correct me on this) just like St Valentine. a sain having the same liklihood of committing evil as a demon? i dont think so. sure the ability for a cupid to commit evil is there, i am not denying that.......but the chance that he actually DOES commit evil seems highly unlikely. |
|
ljones
Whitelighter
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by ljones on Apr 18, 2008 2:53:53 GMT -5
The problem is that the series' writers tend to hold them accountable for their smaller mistakes . . . not their crimes. And being humans does not mean we should not be held accountable for our mistakes - regardless of whether they are big or small.
That certainly does not make any sense. If Cupid supposed to symbolize romantic love, shouldn't he symbolize all of the aspects of Love - both light and dark? After love isn't always peaches, cream and lightness. Sometimes, it can bring out the very darkness in individuals. To have Cupid represent Love - but only focus on certain aspects of Love makes no sense whatsoever.
|
|
pubesy
Witch
"If I could dream at all, it would be about you. And I'm not ashamed of it." - Edward Cullen
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by pubesy on Apr 18, 2008 7:00:44 GMT -5
wow, ljones, you really love to argue the opposite of everything anyone says.
arguing over a cupid seems ridiculous to me. so i will just agree with your argument of cupids. whatever.
can we get back to the bigger argument though?
|
|
|
|
Post by whitelightertony on Apr 19, 2008 3:23:42 GMT -5
The difference is that witches are half-mortal. And whitelighters are generally Good, except when pushed to extremes (Gideon in Season 6 and Leo in Season 7).
The ironic part is that, if the writers had portrayed the characters on Charmed more ambiguously, they would have been accused of "ripping off" Buffy's writing style. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
So I don't see how this is evidence that Coop supposedly has a 50/50 chance of embracing either Good or Evil.
I don't understand your point. Are you saying that, if Coop had been a true personification of love (including its negative aspects) that he also would have tried to break people's relationships up?
|
|
ljones
Whitelighter
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by ljones on Apr 19, 2008 3:38:09 GMT -5
What is your problem?  I didn't realize that it was against the law to express my own opinions . . . unless I agree with you. What the hell is your problem? If you cannot deal with someone disagreeing with you, then you should stay away from the Internet. What does that supposed to mean? That I'm expected to blindly accept the show's ridiculous black-and-white morality? No. I refuse to. It's ridiculous. I was willing to tolerate it in the early years, because I had assumed that the show would eventually get out of that moronic kind of thinking. But when they failed to . . . I stopped watching. Judging a character or even a person in real life, based upon WHAT he or she is strikes me as being rather stupid and narrow-minded. I refuse to lower my thinking to that level. At least CHARMED would have had a chance of being a better show than it turned out to be. |
|
|
|
Post by whitelightertony on Apr 19, 2008 3:44:47 GMT -5
It means that the mortality of witches (female and male) motivates them to make a combination of good and bad decisions, even though they're expected to fight on the side of Good.
In reference to the whitelighters, I meant that whitelighters are conditioned and indoctrinated to look out for creatures of Good, and they only embrace Evil under extenuating circumstances. Because they are expunged of their mortality, whitelighters have less capacity for the human dynamic of selfishness that witches can more easily engage in.
|
|
ljones
Whitelighter
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by ljones on Apr 19, 2008 3:54:47 GMT -5
It means that the mortality of witches (female and male) motivates them to make a combination of good and bad decisions, even though they're expected to fight on the side of Good. In reference to the whitelighters, I meant that whitelighters are conditioned and indoctrinated to look out for creatures of Good, and they only embrace Evil under extenuating circumstances. Because they are expunged of their mortality, whitelighters have less capacity for the human dynamic of selfishness that witches can more easily engage in. Extenuating circumstances, my ass. I don't buy this. As far as I'm concerned, all sentient beings - are basically ambiguous. Perhaps one day, human beings will stop pretending that they are basically inclinded toward good and accept that they can go either way or remain gray. But I doubt it. We've been feeding on illusions about ourselves for centuries and they are reflected in shows with poor writing like CHARMED. |
|
pubesy
Witch
"If I could dream at all, it would be about you. And I'm not ashamed of it." - Edward Cullen
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by pubesy on Apr 19, 2008 10:05:48 GMT -5
we are not talking about humans. we are talking about mythical, fictitious creatures. i find this laughable. ok i am fed up with this now... its 1am, i just got back from the pub, hence i will be blunt.
STOP INSULTING PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD TO ARGUE YOUR POINTS
THIS IS A CHARMED DISCUSSION FAN SITE. WHY ON EARTH ARE YOU HERE IF ALL YOU WISH TO DO IS INSULT THE SHOW AND US, ITS TRUE FANS??
DON'T YOU HAVE ANYTHING BETTER TO DO WITH YOUR LIFE?
|
|
|
|
Post by Astral Echo on Apr 19, 2008 11:19:01 GMT -5
Pubesy I don't think your total martyr either, in fact your looking more in the grey here than ljones who is simply pointing out that if you don't like someones opinion you snip at them - which I have to fully agree with. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I also find your message above rude, your totally right; this is a Charmed board for people to discuss their opinions (not everyone is going to agree and dare I say it get on either) but if you have to accept the views of the other people around you, if not don't post at all. If you need to back up your opinion and it means linking it to real life, that's all well and good if you can use it right. I have done and no one has ever had a problem with it, they might be fictional characters but they are very similar to people you will meet every day.
The only one causing a problem here at the moment is you Pubsey - ljones is actually in fact in the right here.
|
|
|
|
Post by ~B@MeLiSsA30@B~ on Apr 19, 2008 17:39:23 GMT -5
I understand both your points here. Everyone does have the right to express there views, but not to the point where were arguing over it or being rude because one doesn't agree.
|
|
pubesy
Witch
"If I could dream at all, it would be about you. And I'm not ashamed of it." - Edward Cullen
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by pubesy on Apr 19, 2008 18:51:08 GMT -5
so calling me a stupid bitch, and other such lovely names.
and calling whitelightertony and Vandergraafk other names similiar is arguing a point?
my issue with ljones is NOT her opinions, she can have whatever opinions she likes, i could care less,
its the fact that she throws around insult after insult after insult at anyone who can rebut her point of view.
insulting people is not discussing, or helping anything.
and yeah, sure, neither is bright red large font, but hey, i was slightly tipsy there (no excuse, i know)
but the message has got to get across one way or another.
|
|
I didn't realize that it was against the law to express my own opinions . . . unless I agree with you. What the hell is your problem? If you cannot deal with someone disagreeing with you, then you should stay away from the Internet.
