#anti peter hale

[prettyshon10]

Hey, there.

Just wanted to reiterate that Scott McCall was a VICTIM, and him initially wanting nothing to do with being a werewolf was NOT “whining”.

Peter was vile. Derek was not a good teacher. The bite was NOT a gift. Scott owed them nothing, least of all his gratitude.

There’s nothing “cool” about being attacked in the woods. There’s nothing “awesome” about having your choices and autonomy stripped. There’s nothing “fun” about being hunted. There’s nothing to “embrace” about being dragged into a conflict that has NOTHING to do with you.

Scott McCall was a victim, and y’all need help.

[azurecanary]

If i had a nickel for every show starring a character(s) of colour who were powerful, badass and well written; but are constantly shit on to prop up the white "morally grey" characters who have rushed and/or contradictory development up to and including their ships; I'd have three nickels.

That's it. That's the joke. No "which isn't a lot but it's weird it happened thrice". Cause when it happens that many times, it stops being surprising.

It happened with Scott McCall, it happened with Daisy Johnson, why wouldn't it happen with Alina Starkov and Mal Oretsev?

[princeescaluswords]

Currently thinking of certain factions of fandom who tend to demonize Laura Hale. What exactly did she do that was so awful?

Leaving her injured and catatonic uncle in a care facility? Do they think he would've miraculously healed in New York if she brought him along (if that was even an option)? They seem to think she abandoned him or should've done more. What exactly, dear fandom?

Laura was a young woman who suffered a devastating loss and had to be the leader and look out for her younger brother and injured uncle. Cora was assumed dead too. Similar to Scott, she didn't ask to be alpha.

What did they expect her to do? Wage war against the perpetrators? She didn't know who was involved but she did return when Peter lured her. Fandom thinks she was unfit for the role of alpha because she wasn't ripping throats out and hunting down culprits, that she ~abandoned~ her uncle in a vulnerable state, blah blah.

The way they get angry at Scott disobeying Peter and Derek, you'd think they'd be livid over Peter killing his alpha who was also his niece who was the ~heir~ to Talia. Sacrilege!

Scott didn't ~trust~ Stiles? Well, Petey didn't trust his alpha! Why the secrecy? Why not report in immediately upon gaining consciousness?

*dons the stylish hat of Fandom Logic* Oh, oh Peter was involved in the Hale Fire! He always craved the mantle of alpha and needed Talia out of the way. But he got betrayed by Kate in the end and locked in with the rest of the family. That's why he insisted he's always been the alpha, he was promised the power if he helped destroy the pack. It's why he lured Laura back and killed her instead of communicating, he just wanted the power.

Your question puts me in mind of an argument both This Discontented Winter and Athena Dark have made to counter my indictments of fandoms worship of Peter Hale. To paraphrase TDW, "does all entertainment have to be a morality play?"

The simplistic answer to their bad faith riposte, is "No, it doesn't." You can watch two people sit in a room and not talk to each other. You can watch art hang motionless on a wall or paint dry, but these wouldn't be particularly popular forms of visual entertainment. What excites an audience is how the actors, the characters, the players treat each other, which is governed by principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. In other words, morality.

People watch the Real Housewives franchise because they want to watch rich women behaving badly. People watch John Wick movies because they want to watch ultra violence performed without regard for human life and instead operate on a different code of behavior. Telenovelas, true crime documentaries, space operas, super hero movies -- all the pleasure their audiences gain from it revolve around decisions people make about how to treat each other. They watch it FOR the morality -- or the LACK of it.

The only forms of modern entertainment I can think of that don't focus on morality are professional sports and talent shows, and both of these take it as a given that neither side is cheating. Even Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom proposed to show us the behavior of animals so we can recognize their beauty and right to exist. My apologies to the BNF, but that's morality, too.

When This Discontented Winter bemoans the idea of all entertainment as morality play and Athena Dark that storytelling doesn't have to have a message, what they are in fact arguing for is the ability to celebrate evil. To freely indulge in the type of moral equivocation that allows them to take pleasure in the triumph of a man murdering his niece for power. You know how I know this, because if they truly wanted to enjoy something without the moral dimension, they wouldn't go to such great lengths to protect their blorbos from any moral condemnation.

Thus, we get the idea that Laura deserved death because she abandoned Peter in the long-term care facility, in which he rested safely for six years without the Argents even being aware of his location. We get the idea that Laura deserved death because she didn't seek vengeance for her family, even though she was absolutely looking for the person responsible for the death of her family -- we saw actual physical evidence of it. Thus we get the idea that Peter had no idea what he was doing, that he was out of his mind, only to find out later -- when none of the other characters believe that anymore -- that he was aware of what he was doing all along.

Remember Master Plan (2x12):

Peter: No. It's a laptop. What century are you living in? A few days after I got out of the coma, I transferred everything that we had. Fortunately, the Argents aren't the only ones that keep records.

Wow, that's a remarkable amount of foresight for a person who was supposedly so out of his mind that he shouldn't be held responsible for what he did.

The true problem with BNF trying to argue that we don't have to approach the show with an eye toward morality is because the show absolutely did. It was baked into the substance of the show from the get go. The characters are formed to make choices about how they treat other people. To use their own words, we have to treat the entertainment that is called Teen Wolf as a morality play because it IS a morality play. Every story is.

And this is the problem with fandom, which I've noted again and again and again in regards to Star Wars, Shadow and Bone, and now Loki. They want to extract the characters from the moral schema in which they were situated and put them in a new situation, yet pretend that there isn't a moral dimension to this act. And there is, because this new situation is one where only certain considerations are treated as valid, mostly exploitation of the baser instincts of human nature for the benefit of a very small class of stand-ins, defined by race, class, and gender.

[teenwolf-confessions]

And it's frustrating, because the same people will attack Theo, Ethan, Aiden, even Chris for their wrongdoings, and simultaneously let the far worse Peter off easily despite the fact he differed from all of them by never trying to improve and even betraying the pack more than once. Why does he get a pass because he's a Hale, but the abused teenagers need to be scrutinized for being manipulated?

[shiftingwithmars]

Fictional characters I wanna punch in the face.

(Only half joking)

Harry Potter

Draco Malfoy. He’s a racist little bitch.

Regulus Black. F@cist piece of shit.

Tom Riddle/Voldemort. He’s the worst. Bitch.

Dolores Umbridge cause she’s annoying as hell.

Teen Wolf

Gerard Argent. Bitch is a literal child m*rderer..

Jackson Whittemore. He gets better later in the show but still!

Tamara Monroe. I hate her with a burning passion.

Peter Hale. Once again, I hate him.

Percy Jackson

Luke Castellan cause he deserves it.

Octavian cause he also deserves it.

Hera and Zeus. No explanation needed.

Hunger Games

Okay I haven’t seen all of Hunter Games yet but

Peeta Mellark. He’s really bitchy for some reason.

Effie Trinket. She gives me Umbridge vibes.

Haymitch. Idk he just gets on my nerves.

[liliaeth]

Just been thinking of a discussion I am, or was having, just hesitating on my full reaction. And I keep getting annoyed on one thing in their response. One thing that really bothered me.

the statement that Scott was 'too judgmental of Peter'

Think about that for a second... there was more, but that line in particular just hit me in just the wrong way that it's been playing through my head all day.

The reason for this is... do people who think Scott was too judgmental of Peter, also believe that Derek was too judgmental towards Kate?

And if not, why?

Peter assaulted, violated and terrorized Scott, and then tried to make him murder his loved ones. (Stiles and Allison. As well as Lydia and Jackson who had the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time)

Just like Kate manipulated Derek, violated and sexually abused him, and then used him to murder his family.

Kate and Peter are a similar kind of evil. The only difference is that Kate succeeded in her plan, while Scott managed to outwit Peter through strength of will and well... sheer luck.

But somehow the people who rightly see Kate as a monster, do not see Peter the same way. Despite both of them deserving equal scorn and judgment.

[painofhumanity]

The one good thing Peter Hale did was tear the throat out of Derek's rapist.

[thehollowprince]

One of the reasons I will not leave the Teen Wolf subreddit is just how stupid some people are.

Someone was just complaining, once again, about the movie they totally didn't watch (wink wink), and their main complaint was that they couldn't believe that Peter would allow Eli to be adopted by Scott at the end of the movie.

So I said, "You can't imagine Peter, the man who killed his own neice and manipulated his own daughter in the hopes that she would kill for him while he was working with the woman who burned his family alive, quite possibly didn't really care for a nephew he probably never interacted with before?"

I know that the TW fandom didn't watch the same show the rest of us did because what happened on screen showed us that Peter never really cared for his own family, but it's just such a stupid thing to ask.

Who came up with this headcanon and can we talk?

[philtatosbuck]

insane how many st*rek fans are also p*dia fans this sure is unrelated in any way shape or form

[kathrahender]

Some people always get angry when a villain is redeemed. They say things like "Stop redeeming the villain" "Villain redemption is such a terrible trope" "Not all villains deserve redemption" "Villains redemption are ruining media" "You are afraid of villanous characters because you can't bear people making mistakes" "Villain redemption is toxic/unhealthy" "You shouldn't try to fix someone!" and- Well- I have to talk about this because I seriously don't understand why people don't want to accept villains redemption.

"Villain redemption is such a terrible trope" "Villains redemption are ruining media". No, it's not a bad trope. Is not ruining media. It's an awesome trope, a wholesome trope, and I'm gonna say why. A villain redemption means nothing more than a person realizing they did bad things. It means a villain becoming a better person, a villain leaving the Dark Side because humanity and honor were more important than evilness and cruelty for them. And that's a beautiful concept. A villain becoming good? A villain who stops being bad because after all, they have a good side, because they are human? Where's the bad thing there? Where's the bad thing in realizing how much pain you've caused, and changing your morals for good? Seriously, people who hate villains redemption, where's the problem in this trope?

"Not all villains deserve redemption". Again with this tiring argument. When will you understand it? A villain redemption is not based on if they deserve it or not. It's based on the villain himself. It's based on their thoughts, on their morals. It's based on them changing from "I want to hurt/kill everyone who is against me" to "Oh God I'm a monster, what have I done?". Villains don't "deserve" redemption. They just redeem, or they don't, and it has nothing to do with "deserving" it. Some of you could think "Not all villains should be redeemed then!". I will talk about that argument in the last paragraph.

"You are afraid of villanous characters because you can't bear people making mistakes". That's definitely not true. That's bullshit. We're not afraid of people making mistakes. If that was true, we would be afraid of a hero making mistakes. And we aren't afraid of heroes who make mistakes. Because making mistakes makes you human. But- realizing you made a mistake also makes you human. That's what we like about this trope. A bad person, a villain or an anti-villain being actually human deep down.

"Villain redemption is toxic/unhealthy!" Actually- you know what's actually toxic? Hate. Hate is actually toxic. Hating someone is unhealthy. Of all the things you can do in your life, hating someone is the worst thing you can do. Why losing time hating when you can do better things for your heart and for your soul? Because the only thing you will get with hate is your heart/soul corrupted. A villain redeemed is not toxic nor unhealthy. Why a person changing for the better would be toxic or unhealthy?

"You shouldn't try to fix someone". Why? Why shouldn't I try to fix someone? Why shouldn't I want a bad person to turn good? Why shouldn't I want a villain becoming a hero? Why should I want the hate in this world to grow? Why should I want evilness to win? What you're saying doesn't make any sense. I want to fix villains because I believe in goodness! Because I want the good side to win! I want people having a happy ending, and the only way a villain can get a happy ending is being redeemed. And I want the villains to have a happy ending too because dying or getting tortured/being imprisioned after being suffering in your past is horrible. Yeah, I know villains hurt people, but some of them also were hurt, and although I don't justify them, I still want their pain to end and I want them to live, not just survive. I want them to change for the good, why is that so bad?

And even if they were "born evil" (what I doubt because for me villains are made not born) and "didn't suffered"- I want them to have a happy ending after redeeming because I want to believe in their goodness, in their humanity, and I don't want them to die because I think they also deserve a second chance in life and a chance to be happy (because if you can't be happy in this life, what's even the point?).

"But why would you want a villain having a happy ending after all they did????" Because I don't want them to suffer. "They made other people suffer, why would you want them to have a happy ending?" Because I believe no one deserves to have a bad ending in life. "So you defend the monsters in real life??? You support the real killers?? You are a murder apologist!!" Now hold on a fucking second. There's a fucking difference between liking a villain in fiction and want them to have a happy ending and want the real life villains to have a happy ending. Fiction is not fucking reality and you should know that. I want villains in fiction to redeem because I want to believe in their goodness, because I want to believe everyone is capable of being good, because I want to believe love and goodness can conquer all. Because I want to believe that no matter what, the good side will always win. Besides, most of the villains live in magic worlds, where sometimes death is not permanent, where you can see your loved ones even if it's not for a long time. And in fiction time-travel also exist. None of these things happen in reality. There's no magic, there's no time turner who can help you travel back in time to erase the villain's actions, there aren't Force Ghosts of your family or friends. Real life villains' actions are irrevocable and unforgivable. You can't bring back the dead because in this world once a person dies, that's the end of the line. But that doesn't happen in fiction. So stop comparing a real life villain actions with a fictional villain actions. They're not the same.

To end this post I want to say that the ones who like villains redemption (I'm a part of those people, of course) don't want all villains to be redeemed. There are villains we hate with all our heart, villains who are pure evil who doesn't deserve anything good. Villains like Gerard Argent, Dolores Umbridge, Sheev Palpatine, Captain Turner, Sebastian Shaw and Azulon. And more villains like those. So yeah, we do not want to see every villain redeemed.

[stereklyrics]

What if when Peter tried to kill Scott in S4 finale, he actually did it because Stiles & Derek were dating and he just wanted to protect his nephew's boyfriend, who he actually already considered a nephew too? Like, he saw the way Scott treated Stiles, he saw how Scott was a bad friend. He just did what he thought it was the best, which was trying to kill Scott.

[theonlyblackcanary]

I feel like people forget Peter's descent into madness was largely started by Kate literally murdering almost his entire family, like I don't think he would've murdered Laura if Kate hadn't set the house on fire and sent him into insanity

[princeescaluswords]

If you could redo the scene with Lydia and Allison seeking help from Peter with her Banshee powers, how would you change it?

Oh, this is the easiest question I have ever received from you in the years we have known each other. I have multiple reasons for my answers, and they remain bedrock firm.

I would have burnt the entire concept of that scene to the ground.

Reason #1: What is this man doing here? At this point of the narrative, which characters would be able to trust or even willingly approach Peter? The scene literally points out what Peter did to Lydia and what Peter did to Allison. Earlier in the episode, Lydia recognizes that Peter is trying to manipulate her through her mother. In Galvanize (3x15), Derek demonstrates that he doesn't trust Peter and learns something about him from Talia's spirit. Season 3B shows everyone fighting for their lives against the nogitsune, while Peter fights for what Peter wants. The entire season of 3A showed Peter being selfish, Peter scheming, Peter lying, and yet they're still coming to him in crisis situations. It's just dumb.

The answer, of course, is that the production had to justify resurrecting Peter and keeping Ian Bohen on the payroll without changing Peter's essential nature. Only fools would want to involve themselves with a vicious serial killer and proven con artist, but the production is willing to paint every single character as a fool in order to keep White Male Snark on the screen. And the worst part is -- the plot makes it clear that the action isn't even worth it. All Peter does is smirk at both of them and then yell at Lydia until she figures it out herself. Allison says "Peter doesn't offer help; he offers you the chance to be manipulated into giving him what he wants" and that's exactly what happens! Peter manipulates Lydia into giving him what he wants. You might think they learned their lessons, but Lydia will do the same thing three episodes later.

Reason #2: Wasn't Lydia supposed to be the smart one? As I said before, she recognizes what Peter's doing when he accosts Natalie at the school, but somehow still thinks that her only recourse is to go him? Did she not have Derek's number? Could she not have waited twenty-four hours for Deaton to return? I'm pretty sure she could have tracked down Morrell in that time. Her best friend is the Argent Matriarch; the Argents have no knowledge or contacts with knowledge about banshees? Instead, she sees the trap, she walks into the trap, she gets caught by the trap, and she will be pay the price three episodes later. What's worse, we're not even considering she's made to crawl to the man who violated physically and mentally, who possessed her and made her hurt people, and by the time the show ends, she will supposed to be grateful for it. There will never be a single scene where her suspicion and negative feelings for Peter will be shown to be justified as an end in and of themselves.

Reason #3: Allison will be killed later this season, why did they have to assassinate her character first? Just like Lydia, she knows what's going on, but she goes along with it anyway. She has other options, one of which is turning to Lydia and saying "I know exactly what it's like to listen to an evil man because you're feeling helpless, and I can't stand by and let you make the same mistake!" But no, she has to stand there in that loft and get treated like she's an interloper and, even worse, get equated to Kate. "Your aunt had one of those." When Lydia agreed with him, "cut it out, both of you," their wonderful friendship was damaged as Lydia tosses Allison over the cliff for Lydia's right to get used by a murderer.

Reason #4: Malia never really had a chance, did she? Malia's story was compromised from the beginning, because they were never going to let Malia do to Peter what she did to Corinne. She was never going to get the chance to reject Peter in his entirety, even after he used fatherly affection to try to get her to kill Scott. She was going to be written again and again into having to slight her real families (the Tates and the pack) by making nice with this monster in order to give Ian Bohen a reason to be on the show, and that bullshit starts right here, where Peter's entitlement to be her "Dad" (be right back, throwing up in my mouth a little bit) becomes more important than anything else.

What could have been done instead? How about Deaton, who will literally help Lydia do the thing she wanted in Superposition (6x02) a little more than a year later. Morrell, who works at an institution that has housed multiple banshees. Or maybe an early introduction of Lorraine. Anything but make two female characters who had both struggled with being more than just an accessory to a male character go to an entitled white male shitbucket and ask for help they know will come with strings attached. As funny as it was, the scene was against theme, against characterization, and against aesthetics. It was total fan service of the worse possible type because it fed the audience's idea that ruthlessness = competence and that to achieve victory you have to do things like value your abuser and tolerate their selfishness.

[teenwolf-confessions]

[rosalinesurvived]

Utter ew but you know what I just realised?

Again with the Jackson-Is-Peter’s-Son Theory you’ve got Kate being a sick fuck admitting she likes very underaged boys compared to a boy who already looks like Peter and ergo Derek, who Kate already seduced read: raped at sixteen

Additionally-yeah same Allison why is Kate such a fucked up insane piece of shit? Hate to pull this out but I don’t wanna hear anyone admiring her in any way shape or form considering that she would be public enemy number one if the genders here were reversed

[liliaeth]

Currently working on something. Been a while since I've fully used Photoshop, so I figured it was time to pick it up again.

Combining my fave Måneskin song, with my fave Teen Wolf character...

Not finished yet, two more pics to go, but just thinking of this song, and how it applies to Scott having to deal with Peter just has me inspired...

Here's a look at some of what I'm working on