#So I don't feel mislead or like it in any way made a false promise about it's trajectory/ themes/ quality

[threewaysdivided]

Yes, the weak writing in TOA is what mellowed me out on the series. Despite my distaste for all the decisions after the first third of the movie I can't say it disappointed me because no matter how excited I was I didn’t have high expectations because I know what it's like. It's funny because I never completed the series. I got through half of Trollhunters and 3lbelow before I just had to leave. It took me a month to finish Wizards and that one's my favorite. So yeah.

(Following on from this ask.)

That's fair. Like I said before, I'm in a pretty similar boat when it comes to Tales of Arcadia. Trollhunters was good and - barring a couple of episodes which I fast-forwarded through because the tropes/ execution of the premise wasn't for me - I had a really enjoyable time with it. But then it reached the end and it felt like there were a lot of questions (changelings etc.), worldbuilding (heartstones etc.) and general complexities (Merlin as he was talked about throughout the series vs Merlin as he appeared at the end) that were left hanging to a frustrating degree.

Now, in fairness, I tend to experience "wait, that's it?"-ism at the end of a lot of TV shows that run for more than a single season - it's probably just the nature of the medium/production environment that makes it hard to match the impact of hours of build-up in just a handful of final episodes, especially since a lot of shows won't know they're on their final season until that season - but with Trollhunters, it was a very intense feeling of "wait, that's it?".

Part of the reason why I initially watched 3Below was that I had hoped it would continue building on the unanswered lore questions from the first series (a fairly common thing for sequels/ spinoffs to do) but instead it took a hard right-turn into aliens and sci-fi. And - much as Douxie is probably my favourite ToA protagonist - by Wizards it became clear that even when we were going back (heh) to the more Troll-adjacent fantasy world, most of those questions still weren't going to be satisfyingly answered, if at all.

Part of me wonders if this might be a small blind-spot of Del Toro's when combined with Netflix, since outside of ToA most of his resume is film, and film has different structural/ worldbuilding/ storytelling conventions due to the much shorter run time. A 'film ending' would probably feel underdeveloped at the end of a TV series because shows by necessity have to add and flesh out more concepts to fill their run time. Just speculation through.

By about halfway through 3Below I was definitely watching more out of a sense of analytical curiosity and 'might as well see it through' than because I was still invested and suspending my disbelief. If I'd made it dedicated watch (rather than something to have on while sewing the Purrloin Plush) I probably would have stopped at about midway through 3Below, so I totally get where you're coming from with that.

As a sidenote: The way Wizards handled the Merlin/amulet/Morgana's-hand point from Trollhunters felt almost like a cop-out to me. Like they were trying to walk back/ distance Merlin from the morally callous nature Trollhunters both showed and suggested in some antagonists' dialogue, by making it seem like far less of a deliberate scheme from him, having her turn 'bad' for unrelated reasons ahead of time and someone else being the one to actually cut her hand off. Which kind of retroactively makes it weird that she claims he "took her hand" in the first series. That line made it seem more morally complex (that maybe she became a villain' because she was directly betrayed/ wronged by one of the heroes) but then her character gets weirdly flattened. Tales of Arcadia's moral stance on Merlin is just very unclear and strange in general.

With all that said though, I think there is value sometimes in going in to something with no expectations - or knowing/ expecting it to be bad - as an exercise in analysing storytelling. One upside is what you said; because you're not really invested/ aiming to become invested you don't end up being as disappointed by bad writing. (It's that weird sort of optimistic pessimism - if you expect the worst then you'll either be right or pleasantly surprised).

Consuming media with the intent to dissect it from the start does give a different experience... but then again no-one watches True Crime Documentaries or Mayday: Air Disaster because they want to experience a perfectly normal day where everything goes well and no-one gets hurt. Some days you just want to watch a train wreck in slow motion and try to work out what went wrong.

I actually did this with Dreamwork's Voltron - I went in having already read discussions, watched a full analysis and knowing it was going to go downhill, because I was curious to see how it was going fall apart so thoroughly that the fandom almost unanimously agrees that it's a mess. Funnily enough I was kind of surprised: not because it wasn't bad (although the first three seasons are genuinely fun) but because it got bad in ways I didn't expect. Most of the discourse I had seen was ship-related so I'd sort of expected a generically mediocre story with some 'Kataang vs Zutara' level character chemistry fanning the flames, but no - the central narrative and structure of Voltron just completely falls apart. It's wild.

And - much as it's always is sad when a series doesn't live up to it's potential - I kind of prefer when a story 'shows its hand' so to speak fairly early on in terms of writing weaknesses. For me, it's almost more tolerable to see the flaws and accept that you have to look past them as the price of entry. It lets you manage your expectations - you're consuming the story in spite of known problems, so it doesn't feel as bad if/when those flaws get big enough to make the story not worth continuing with.

Call it honesty, or maybe just closure, but I'd rather a series that's kind of stupid from the start to one that starts off strong/competent and then gets really unexpectedly stupid all at once. The former tends to sting a lot less.

[handonhaven]

Okay Lizzie and Josie really pissed me off in 3x16. Like Hope just ran off with someone who tried to kill her and someone who manipulated Josie. With no clue why or where they were going. And Lizzie first thought was to try to find Hope a rebound. Not to try to find out where she went or if she was in any danger. And Josie was no help either she didn't bother to do any of those things. She just asked Lizzie with who. I also didn't like Lizzie comment either. When she said "we can't afford to be picky. Anyone who doesn't melt after having sex with her will do." Maybe it's just me and I'm taking that comment the wrong way. But when she said that I got so mad. Because what I took from that was being able to have sex is only thing that matters. So let's just try to hook her up with anyone. Doesn't matter if they're a killer or a psychopath as long as they can have sex then it's fine. I don't know maybe I'm just over reacting to that(but I can't be the only one to feel something like that after hearing that comment, can I?).

So, so many Handon scenes just hits so differently now knowing that Landon was really malivore. I'm not gonna lie after I found that out I went back and watched those scenes over again trying to see if I can find any clues or hints at it. But when I did that I start it to think about the fact that we had a whole season without the real Landon. Then I start thinking about the fact that Landon has had a whole season of going through trauma one right after the other since 3x02(when Raph died) and it only got worse from there. Then I got mad at the writers for doing that to him. It was bad enough that his life before coming to the school was hell. So were they just like yeah lets put him through a whole season a trauma too. Now before anyone says well Hope went through hell this season too. I'm not saying she didn't. But I feel like Landons was on a whole different level than Hopes. Because Landon had to watch his brother die, then had to watch himself melt, then he was in malivore, then in the prison fighting off monsters, to then having malivore take over his body. And who knows what he's going through in this own mind right now. But I think my biggest fear is that when they do get Landon back the real Landon. That they play off his trauma to save time(like they often do now). Or someone will try to downplay it like it was nothing. Because if they do that imma be pissed.

So I start it thinking about that maliLandon scene with Cleo when we saw both malivore's and Landons memories. And all of Landons memories were big Handon moments for season 2(I think there might have been some for season 1 but I can't remember). And I know they did that for a reason. I think in that scene it inspired both malivore and Landon somehow to do something. I just can't figure out what and I know myself this will be stuck on my mind until we finally find out lol. I'm already thinking up theories and all both make sense but don't make sense all at the same time. And this is really going to bug me.

P.S 1: I have to say this season had one very consistent thing, the "Logical" answer is wrong.

- Logic telling Hope, Landon was dead ....wrong

- Logic telling Hope, Landon was back.....wrong (Hope felt something was off but chose to ignore it bc she missed him)

- Logic telling Hope, she and Landon are doomed.....wrong

- Logic telling Cleo, to trust Landon and he was only traumatized.....wrong

- Logic telling them Malivore wanted Cleo to escape the prison world....wrong

- Logic telling them, the monsters were coming from a actual pit....wrong

- Logic telling Hope the only way to kill Malivore is to become a Tribrid.....wrong

- Logic telling Hope she caused Landon to melt.....wrong(okay I know we don't know for sure about that one. But that feels way way to much like a red herring with how much it's been said). Also another consistent thing is everything they say things Multiple times over and over again espesally things that have no concrete proof turns out to be False. They keep repeating these things; Landon is Human, Landon is dead, Landon is not a Phoenix anymore, Hope needs to become a Tribrid, Hope is toxic to Landon(once again I know we don't know for sure yet, but there's no way that isn't a red herring), Hope and Landon are doomed. Watch all turn out to be wrong.

2. The antis and H*sies are already coming out the wood works. And there this one line I see that they're really trying to hold onto like it's a win or something. How at the end of 3x16 when Hope said "we want our friends back" they're taking it like Hope sees Landon as a friend now(among other things but that would make this too long if I write it all out). Which is sad and means they're truly not paying attention to anything. And let me just point out that Hope was speaking for everyone not just herself. So it makes more sense for her to say "we want our friends back" then it would be for her to say "we want our friend and my boyfriend back". Since they're all friends with Landon and Cleo. Even though they're not very good friends to Landon(minus Hope because Hope is with Landon and treats him better than his "friends" does). But that's a whole other thing for another time. I do my best to say away from antis and H*sies but somehow one of them somehow always end up in my timeline. And it's gonna make these next three months so much longer than it needs to be tbh.

Same. Exactly! It was all so strange.

Lizzie was just upset over the fact that Hope ditched them, but Hope has always done stuff like that on her own to keep others out of danger. Yet Lizzie didn’t even seem to care, even though both her and Josie said they didn’t trust Clarke after all he had done. So they knew that Hope could’ve been in danger. But Lizzie’s highest concern in that moment was finding Hope a rebound as quickly as possible?? What on earth... And Josie acknowledged that Hope could be in danger, said she cared more about her actual life than her romantic one, but then proceeded to do nothing. And exactly! That comment really bothered me too! Yep, that’s also how it came across to me. Like Hope being able to have sex with someone was the priority, the rest wasn’t important. I don’t think you’re overreacting, I thought it sounded really bad. And the fact that Lizzie was focusing on that over Hope’s safety... I don’t even know what to say. Then Ethan shows up and they drag him into it, it was just a mess, and probably the weirdest way and time to bring in a love interest for Lizzie. Then they get to the school, are casually standing around chatting, then Lizzie wants to give Ethan a tour. All thoughts about Hope’s safety forgotten, besides Josie mentioning in passing that they needed to tell Alaric what happened. That was the full extent of their efforts to help Hope. Then she gets back and all they can talk about is how she ditched them? Not about what happened or if she’s okay? And they’re the ones who just promised Hope she wouldn’t be facing Malivore alone... not off to a good start.

And right? It’s crazy! Me too, watching the breakup scene is SO different now haha. But ugh, yes. We seriously had nearly an entire season without the real Landon... I can’t. And same. That’s one of the things I’ve been thinking about the most, and I’m honestly mad at the writers as well. Like, it’s actually shocking to think about just how much trauma he has gone through. And I don’t know what made them to decide to put him through that much because it’s unreal. Just... why?? So true, he had a lifetime of trauma before the show even started! Went through more trauma while at the school, going through death after death. And then went through the most horrible things this whole season. And yes, Hope did go through hell, but what she went through was very different. I agree, what Landon went through was on a whole other level. Exactly! He literally went through one trauma right after the other. And he went through them alone (apart from losing Raf). Without any help, and every single time he escaped one thing, he ended up in another and endured more trauma. He’s been through pure hell, nonstop, and I can’t imagine what state he’s in right now and how he’ll be when this is all over. Oh, and literally me. I’m honestly so worried they’re gonna do that too. That they’ll just ignore his trauma, that they won’t show how he’s been affected or have him talking about it. And it will just get cut off and forgotten and they’ll jump to the next thing and he may not get even a break. Because that really is what they do all the time. And right now is their chance to show what he’s been through. To go back and show what happened to him and show his side of things. We need to actually see what he’s been through and how he’s being affected right now. And once they get him back, they need to address it. They need to let him and Hope rest. I think season 4 needs to be about them healing together, though I’m sure they’ll be dealing with more crap. So I’m very worried about that, I will be pissed right along with you if they don’t go into that. That’s probably what I want to see the most at this point, and what I think is extremely important, not only for his character, but also because they shouldn’t ignore that kind of trauma.

And yes, they were! They had Landon remembering Hope telling him she loved him for the first time, and then those other huge moments for them, the 2x08 reunion, and the scenes in 2x11. I‘m wondering if those might be Landon’s most powerful memories. And I think you could be right, I’ve wondered the same thing, but I also can’t figure it out. Like they showed Handon memories with Malivore creating Clarke like... I’m so confused haha. They definitely left us with too many questions, and now we have to wait, it’s gonna suck.

Wow, you make very good points with that. That’s very interesting for sure. The writers really used “logic” as a way to mislead the characters in order to shape the plot for the season. And I think because of that, they also had to hold the characters back from investigating things further. When I feel like Hope, especially, would’ve looked into things more to figure out what was going on, but they couldn’t have them finding out yet so they just had everyone believing in the “logical” answer. Which does end up fitting with the idea that things are not what the seem, especially with all the things you listed that they keep repeating. Which does make it seem pretty obvious that they’re trying to convince us of these things that aren’t actually true. I think it’s gonna all turn out to be wrong as well. We already know it wouldn’t make sense for Landon to be fully human since he never was, and that he’ll surely get his Phoenix powers back. And I agree about Hope being toxic to Landon too, the more they’ve talked about it, the less I believe it’s true haha. And same now with them talking about Hope having to become a full tribrid, it seems like they might be doing the same thing. Or at least, if these things aren’t already wrong, Hope and Landon will find a way to prove them wrong by fighting their fate.

Yeah, those people clearly aren’t paying attention to the show and are grasping for anything at this point. Did they not watch Hope’s scenes with Clarke and how she responded to him talking about fighting fate? Did they not hear her literally tell Cleo that she still loves Landon? Obviously, Hope does not view Landon as just a friend. She was speaking for the group, just like you said. I don’t even think Hope sees Cleo as her friend right now. When Cleo told Hope that she hopes they can be friends again after all this, Hope said nothing and just walked away. So yeah, she was speaking for everyone else, although it’s weird that the rest of them would even view them as friends either. I’m pretty sure Kaleb is the only one who really sees Cleo as a friend. And true, they’re not even friends to Landon, none of them gave a crap when he died, so I’m not even sure why they were there. I guess since there’s a threat now? But anyway, yeah, I get that it’s hard to avoid those fans, the hate is everywhere. But knowing how ridiculous their reasoning is and how far they’re reaching helps me to just kind of laugh it off sometimes, although it is annoying. It gets so tiring to see, but I’m just gonna try to focus on enjoying Handon and ignoring the antis as best I can!

[himbeaux-on-ice]

Wanted to make a few additions to this.

I was thinking throughout this about the piece from ESPN in early March that talked to players about how they have struggled mentally with being so isolated, but couldn’t find it at the time. Managed to track that down, it’s worth a read for some perspective:

Additionally, another anon has brought to my attention that we do now know where Lehner got the impression that restrictions would be eased. Per ESPN, it seems to have been VGK team staff, not the NHL or the PA, that provided misleading information to players:

Lehner said he was given a sheet that explained the NBA's benefits for their teams that reach vaccination thresholds. As Vegas players contemplated getting the vaccine or not, they were referred to those printouts of the NBA's policy, according to Lehner.

Source article for that quote can be read here:

It’s a boneheaded move on the part of the team staff that ends up feeling gross in its optics, and Robin is right to feel angry and misled by something like that. Vegas team staff had absolutely no business presenting NBA policy to their players (with the obvious intent of implying that the NHL would take similar measures) in an effort to encourage them to get vaccinated, when that policy has absolutely nothing to do with what the NHL. That is lying to them. The League needs to have words with the people within the VGK organization who were responsible for this and make sure all teams are clear on the actual NHL policy, otherwise the egg is on their face too.

That article mentions that Robin’s psychologist told him when he was diagnosed with bipolar 1 disorder several years ago that he is recommended to avoid spending a lot of time isolated from other people because of it. I can only imagine that the idea of no longer having to balance “stay quarantined enough to meet the protocols” with “spend enough time around people to keep mental health intact” was a hugely appealing incentive which would have influenced his decision quite a bit. (Especially because as a goalie, you don’t even get to sit on the bench or celly or skate around with the other guys for most of the game when it’s your night in net, you are that much more isolated even when you are at the games than players of any other position.) The idea of not having to be so isolated off the ice once vaccinated was probably very exciting, and the disappointing realization of being misled and realizing that this relief was not going to happen even though you kept up your part of what you believed the deal to be was probably, well, about as infuriating as we saw from that press conference. I feel terrible for him.

I don’t know if the Vegas staff did know that the NHL had no intention of following in the NBA’s footsteps when they presented that info to players in the effort to convince them to vaccinate, or if the staff were just misinformed themselves in hoping that the NHL would eventually take a similar path to other major leagues. But either way this ends up coming off as very disingenuous and likely damaging to the trust between the players and that staff, and I hope there is a reprimand about this. That is not informed consent, and it obviously seems to have led to players like Lehner who might possibly have otherwise made different choices about the vaccine (for reasons likely along the lines of what I discuss below the cut above) to change their mind and get it now specifically because the falsely-promised relief from mentally exhausting isolation outweighed whatever reasons would have held them back.

Sure, it’s a good thing from a herd immunity perspective that they’re vaccinated anyway now, but vaccination for players is a choice, I can fully understand any players who read that fact sheet, believed it, and made a decision based on it, feeling like they were manipulated with the promise of a reward that would not actually be given.

Hello! I was wondering if you could please explain to me what Robin Lehner said yesterday about vaccination and competitive edge? English isn't my 1st language and from what I gathered NHL and PA promised VGK that if they get vaccinated the restrictions on them will lessen and they can freely leave their houses. And when they players got vaccines, NHL changed their promise and said players can't do that until all of the teams across the league are evenly vaccinated (shitty move from NHL, 1/2

2/2 as always). But what did Robin mean talking about competitive edge? I rewatched the video 3 times and I still don't understand :( Did the league make it a competition between the teams? "The sooner you all get vaccinated, the sooner there'll be no resctions on you?" I hope, I'm not completely missing the point, sorry about that. Big respect for Robin for speaking up and calling out the league. I'm really happy seeing players speaking up for themselves and their teams

Hi anon! I’ve spoken about this already a bit here and here, in case you haven’t seen those yet and think they might answer some of your questions. But I’m happy to elaborate further! I hope I can clear this up for you.

First, just as a note: Right now it doesn’t seem to exactly be clear what the NHL and NHLPA did or didn’t promise players in terms of easing restrictions, but it seems like Lehner was definitely given the impression by somebody that a team getting fully or mostly vaccinated was the ticket to not being under such strict isolation. The NHL for their part seems to be claiming they promised no such thing, but it’s hard to know right now whether that’s just them covering ass, or if there was just a misunderstanding somewhere in which what they actually said was not fully clear to the players. [Elliotte Friedman voice] More news may be yet to come on this.

Right. So as far as “competitive edge” goes, I can definitely explain that. You’re only a little off the mark. What he means in this case is that the NHL is concerned that letting more fully vaccinated teams live under a less intensely restrictive set of internal rules (regarding things like dining together, exercising together, sitting next to each other on planes and busses, having more group off-ice social time, sharing hotel rooms, having in-person coaching meetings again, etc) will lead to that group having an on-ice advantage in their play over other teams who are less vaccinated and still have to live under full restrictions.

Because the NHL is intensely obsessed with “parity of sport” (trying to make the conditions of competition the same for all teams regardless of outside factors wherever possible), they always in as many situations as possible want to eliminate any potential leg up one team could have over others. This is why we have things like the salary cap, rules about scouting players, rules about how draft picks are distributed that try to make sure struggling teams have a chance to draft well, rules against signing your best players for 20-year contracts so nobody else can have them, etc.

In general theory, being parity-oriented is good! It aims to make sure that the success of teams on the ice and in the standings is determined by the hockey play/skill alone as much as possible, not by franchise wealth or other things they did to get an unfair jump on the competition. And that should make the games more fun and less boring/predictable in most cases! As far as sports leagues go, the NHL has pretty good parity of play overall — there are only a few REALLY good teams and only a few REALLY bad ones, and everybody else performs within a pretty similar range most years. This is why back-to-back Cup wins are so rare in the current era, because due to all the rules to enforce parity there are relatively few teams that are THAT dominant over the competition for a long stretch of multiple seasons in a row, and the odds of any given team winning each year are much more similar. (As compared to like that period in the late 70’s when it was like “who won the Cup? oh surprise surprise it’s the Habs AGAIN 🙄” lol).

However, sometimes the NHL gets unrealistic in its pursuit of making sure everything is exactly the same for all teams. We’ve seen it already this season with the stubborn insistence on making sure the Canucks play a full 56 game season like everybody else, regardless of whether it is safe or reasonable to do so in the time they have left.

This time, the fixation on parity seems to be rearing its head in the form of the League insisting that even if a team has most or all of their players and staff vaccinated, they still have to maintain the same intense restrictions within team spaces as other teams which may be WAY further behind in getting everyone vaccinated, rather than getting to benefit from the lowered risk that being thoroughly vaccinated brings within a closed group like that. And they seem to be insisting on this not because it would be unsafe to change things for vaccinated teams, but rather because of concern that doing so might make that team perform better as a hockey team.

That’s the key part here: The NHL seems to consider getting to (safely) return to a mode of team life that is somewhat more similar to what these guys have been habitually used to pre-pandemic, to be something that could translate into an unfair on-ice advantage in the quality of their play, over other teams who are still doing it all “the hard way” under strict restrictions because they haven’t been vaccinated yet. And because of trying for parity, they want avoid giving teams that “advantage” by basing restriction changes around each team’s individual situation, and instead plan to ease restrictions for all teams at the same time at some point once all teams are similar levels of vaccinated.

Now, US teams seem to be getting vaccinated faster and faster every day, but Canadian teams probably have not started vaccinating their players or any team employees under age 50 at all yet, because Canada’s vaccination process has been painfully slow. So waiting on them to catch up could leave US teams who are already mostly/fully vaccinated still stuck in those restrictive mentally draining conditions for quite some time before the other teams catch up — again, not because it isn’t COVID safe to ease their restrictions if done properly (that doesn’t seem to be a problem), but because the League sees the improvements to their mental state and team morale/cohesion that would come from living a less restricted life together and getting to return to familiar off-ice hockey routines as gaining a “competitive edge” over unvaccinated teams, which would lead to them playing better hockey to a level that can’t be matched as a result.

Which, Lehner is right, is a pretty fucked up way to look at it! “It’s an unfair advantage for you to not be miserably alone and depressed by that and frustrated and doing everything with 16 extra steps you’re still not used to, it’s an unfair advantage to get to actually act like a team off the ice when playing a team sport, so no, we’re not gonna let you eat lunch together or share hotel rooms or whatever” is not exactly a compassionate argument!

Anon I’m also really glad Robin said something about it, and I was glad to see VGK captain Mark Stone put full and vocal team support behind him when asked about it last night on the broadcast too. The mental price of these intense restrictions is something that has been weighing on my mind ever since I first heard they would have to spend all their time on the road locked in hotel rooms alone when not playing and thought “oh god, five months of that is going to be psychologically devastating”. It’s a relief to hear it acknowledged.

I’m not fully sure what the best solution is here, but that mental wellbeing factor absolutely must be discussed in all decisions. It would be fucked up if the League is treating that as something purely technical to be controlled like the salary cap, rather than as a key determinant of health and life (in the short and long term) that is just as important as COVID safety. The old hockey culture of “just suck it up” cannot cut it anymore.

Aside: I think it’s also worth mentioning while we’re here, that I think I do understand why players may be angry about have been talked into getting the vaccine because they thought it would lead to eased personal restrictions, and why I don’t believe that anger necessarily represents an “anti-vaxx” mindset. There are reasons they may not have planned on getting vaccinated just yet which aren’t necessarily “anti-vaxx” cult thinking (though that doesn’t mean they’re smart reasons lol) and would likely seem reasonable to players in-context. I’m gonna put that under a cut though bc this is already really long!

First, there’s the fact that we don’t know what medical conditions some players may or may not have which could make them hesitant to get some of the vaccines out of an abundance of caution. More prominently you also gotta remember, these guys are athletes currently competing their way through an extremely intense and extremely important part of the season as they try to secure playoff spots, playing sometimes as many as 4 games a week. Looking at it that way, it’s understandable why some of them would be hesitant about getting a shot at this particular time which we all know is going to whammy you with a nasty little bout of mild-moderate side effects that hit you like a bad cold for as much as a week. They probably don’t feel they can afford to be laid up with muscle aches, sinus suffering, fatigue, and all the other little fun (and eventually harmless in the end!) things that your body runs through while activating that initial immune response — because in the couple of days that it throws them off for, their team could play 3 or more REALLY important playoff-clinching games, which they could end up underperforming in or having to sit out.

If that is the situation you’re in, and you already feel like the current League restrictions are doing enough to protect you, you can see why you would say “I think I’ll wait and get it during the offseason/during the week break between regular season and playoffs, and just suck it up for these last few weeks dealing with the same ol lonely isolation restrictions I’ve already gotten used to dealing with all season long, rather than be hit with that curveball of possible temporary vaccine side-effects during this time when I need to give it my all every game.” That may sound like a selfish mindset, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that is how at least some of these athletes are approaching it, especially ones who may be single guys without families at home to worry about protecting. (Lehner, for the record, has a wife and two young kids).

BUT, if the League told you (or it sounded like the League told you) “Hey, if enough of your team gets vaccinated quickly, we’ll be able to lift some of the internal restrictions for you guys and let you like hang out and do stuff together within the team again”, and if you were REALLY struggling with the mental stress of that isolated living style, you might weigh the two options against each other and say “Okay, I’m willing to power through a week of potential side-effects and get vaccinated with the fellas if it means I won’t have to be so goddamn miserable and depressed every day.” and then you get the shot(s).

And if you did that, and THEN the League said “lol no, even though your team is fully immunized you still have to sit in your room alone every night and eat by yourself and not leave your house, because it’s not fair to other teams if you guys are no longer mentally miserable like them”, well now you find yourself in the worst of both worlds — still stuck in isolation, AND you’ve still got to play through all the potential vaccine side-effects that will leave you a little off your game during some of the most crucial games of the year.

Plus, that leaves you not feeling like you got to give informed consent — you agreed to get vaccinated (ie undergo a medical treatment) under the expectation that there would be certain rewards to be gained in terms of relief for your mental health, which made you decide it was worth the potential dent in your performance for a few games and any other worries you had about the vaccine, because the prospect of that relief was so worth it. And now, you are told by the League “that payoff you expected never existed, we never promised that, what are you talking about? we can’t change things for your mental health because that might make you better at hockey than the depressed unvaccinated teams”. I can understand how that turn of events could leave someone, as Robin expressed, feeling like they were “tricked” or “forced” into making a choice that they may have done differently otherwise. They felt that they were promised something in return that they didn’t get.

Note at the end of all this: Again, we still don’t know whether the NHL and NHLPA actually made any promises, or if they simply weren’t clear enough in communicating expectations to teams and the players misunderstood what was said to mean something else. Regardless, using the idea that being freed from having to be miserably isolated to an even greater degree than most of the US general public is an “unfair competitive advantage” to now justify not allowing reasonable adjustments to the restrictions for fully vaccinated teams is fucked up, and treats mental wellbeing as just another gameplay-impacting factor to be controlled rather than a deeply impactful part of a person’s overall wellbeing which can even threaten their life. The players must be treated as people.

[ouathinktank-metacommentary]

One big issue with tv shows is that unlike with books, the message is incomplete. So they might temporarily put out the opposite message of what they will be saying in the end. Or not. Which is the issue. We don't know. What does your tv Utopia look like in regards to this issue? How do we combine accountability with artistic integrity and freedom? What framing should there be? What would it look like for Once Upon a Time?

Oo-kay. Forstarters, there’s a world of difference between message being incomplete (whichcan indicate less than adequate narrative development, to put it mildly) or if itis left to interpretation (which can vary between being clever, thoughtprovoking–even subversive) so I guess we can approach appraisal of OUaTfrom radically different angles–depending on our individual assessment of that starting point? So, I assume youalready know ours. It just cannot not start from the need to rationalizetheir ‘origins’ into the continuity, and it being–the accolades (or criticism,depending who you ask) they got for Lost. Because as we know, they have been praisedfor it–for all those explorations of that notion of multiplicity(alternative timeline/versions, etc) so we must take into account thepossibility of that affecting theirarrogance to start with–and that we have (possibly? probably? maybe?) giventhem undeserved ‘headstart’ so they took themselves too seriously–and approachedtheir new project (and their attitude/response to audience feedback, or lack thereof) in suchway? Also, more importantly–that they have naturally attracted the ‘intelligent’ followingfor it to begin with (because participatory culture surpasses basic passiveconsumerism, offers enriched dynamic, more lifelike experience–all thatjazz) thus ‘burdening’ themselves with a significantly more demanding audience, andit–affecting a more resounding feeling of our general discontent now?

Eitherway, that could explain the game of one-upmanship, of them striving to (andaround S3 starting to fail miserably, IMO) to stay two steps ahead of the audience.Hence the tactics of opposite message of what they will probably be saying in the end that you mention–so yes of course, false clues, red herrings, logicalfallacies or any other devices that lead audiences towards misleadingconclusions. Because it’s really hard to know anything in the middle? Andwhich now reminds me, I remember reading when someone was talking about Lost (perhapsJenkins, I think I also talked about it here, or somewhere–but just can’t go around diggingfor references, the archives became overwhelming, so–I just might repeatmyself, for which I apologise in advance :) and them trying to account for the things they invented in earlierseasons without too much thought of what they actually might mean and/or wherethey might lead (which sounds WAY too familiar now?) Dickens was mentioned. As in, how his works are nowseen as really well-structured novels because we read them in a bounded form,but in fact–he sometimes radically rewrote his ‘vision’ (which, retconning?) ofthe characters. So if the middle point is supposedly the most ‘productive’ space(because universally, fans also generate alternative versions of the narrativeas they theorize about what’s going on, versions which are very generative,very rich and interesting–like say, what you have been doing?) and while theyare exploring all the alternatives (which alas, usually manifest as randomness/retconningin their writing, these days?) shouldn’t it be, well–the most productive part?Instead of this… disastrous mash of pacing/contrivance, riddled with alarminglyhorrible messages–basically a pile of stinking heterosexist, racist, misogynistand homophobic shite? And all after that beginning that was so staggeringlypromising–and/or dangerously misleading?

Which brings me to, yes, fundamentally–the media industry (broadly defined) and the TV entertainmentindustry in particular, need to be far more accountable when it comes to themessage they create, both in the content itself, and the ways in which it is distributed.But if we try to combine accountability and artistic integrity and freedom–wecannot but question what IS Brothers Dim’s primary drive here? Free expression,pursuit of a vision, consistent and brilliant narrative (the ‘modern’re-envisioning of fairytales, subverting the old dogmatic tropes and all that)or are they driven purely by commerce, designed to build a brand that will multiplyrevenue streams or drive eyes toward a central moneymaking mothership? Because that’s the crux of the problem here.

And sinceyou asked, yes–my personal TV Utopia is of course all about the former. I do believe infree expression and I do believe that the showrunners have the right to createwhatever content they want–no creative limits or boundaries whatsoever. Hell,at one point I did believe that theory, that they were actually giving us twoparallel narratives, an obvious/direct one for the casual/superficialviewership (showing the cautionary tale of what’s not supposed to bea well-accepted normative) and the ‘hidden’ and yet obvious multi-layered onethat challenged the hegemony–and developed that ‘subversive’modern fairtytale about two mothers sharing a son, sense of understanding, acceptanceand ultimately, love. But as a rule, the issue becomes problematic when the show is aired–how it’s distributed and to which audiences. Because while the industry shouldbe far more vigilant, oftentimes they aren’t–because they go for pandering, asit is what (they think) sells. So inevitably the question arises,where does the ‘vision’ start being altered, twisted and is eventuallycompletely forgone–in favour of a product served/tailored by market target (whose age was drastically reduced in S4 with Frozen, in this case)audience? Inthe end leaving it to us, the more demanding crowds–tobelieve that we’ve either been misled (they tried, tested, enticed, and well–queerbaiting’s all we got left with?) or it was where they wereheading, but–they got yanked back by the PTB? And now basically giving way tothe biggest disagreement we might have here now: have we given WAY too much depthand meaning to this product than it really deserves (or was originally meant tohave, anyway) and thus credit to its authors, or are they (or well, were they–before PTBs trimmed theirwings) really intrepid and brave show runners with a brilliant vision?

You can guess what we here believe. Because sixyears later, the result is schizophrenic to say the least. For instance,sure–Hood might be a ‘prop’ for Regina but it looks like they keep hiring the idiot back (andthe story goes on and on and on?) and sure, Hook might just be a commentary oneverything that is screwed up about fairytale sexist dogma… but again, they’redragging it all way past the point of logic, no? So as a result we have here now is anintense, even toxic part of the audience (online fandom) while a whole other partof it is just as immersed in the story–but the story they think is being toldis far less subversive and actually far more dangerous. And the real problem has been the marketing of that kindof story–the story that tells you that Hook is your dream lad, 50 Shades of Rapecultureis the best romance ever written, and lesbians are mean and angry people whoshould just go away. Because bottom line: to go there by sacrificing your twostrongest female characters when the context you’re writing stories within–neithernecessitates nor justifies the undermining (or defiling) of these ‘strong women’, and… well. Onetruth is being told at the expense of the other?

Sooo… purelytextual analysis whilst ignoring all other factors including basic marketing issuesjust isn’t how television works. Because them writing all the negative and harmfulthings is something they SHOULDas showrunners be accounted for, and on a much larger scale. And they should, you know, either justify it or face the consequences far more seriousthan just dwindling ratings of the product they’re now having difficulties tosell. While in the meantime, the ‘mixed’ result of their struggle to balance and pander (they know it can’t be about just Hook, but nothing they wrote about him made people as disgusted as Regina’s stomach-churning shagging scene did–which was a crime against those of us who wantedto see that shirt unbuttoned for any bloody reason–what we can’t stop reiterating) leaves the ultimatequestion, not related to ships/shipping/endgames but rather aboutcharacter journeys–if we as large chunk of theaudience cannot ‘enjoy the ride’ (some of the stuff they wrote was/isdecidedly vile, even more than their collective treatment of an incrediblypersistent/masochistic fanbase that still have hope for Reginaand Emma, who despite what’s been shoved down our throats–stillare the core of this show) then someone please tell me…

What ISthe point? Because I seem to be… missing it.