03-10-2019, 11:51 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-10-2019, 11:59 AM by Hexenadler.)
(03-09-2019, 05:12 PM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: Isn't that pretty much how real life is? People come up with all sorts of ways to justify what they do. How many of history's worst characters would have admitted that what they were doing was immoral or evil?
There's a difference between trying to justify one's actions (however flimsily), and simply not giving a damn at all. The GRIMM writing staff didn't give a damn. The old "but that's real life!" argument is a common defense for what amounts to careless storytelling.
Quote:It's the code restriction that produced the moral consistency of TV's past heroes that was unrealistic.
I hope that's not how you view life in general. If it is, it's an awfully cynical perspective. "Moral consistency" is exactly what made television characters of previous decades more likable (and yes, identifiable) than the current crop. Having a character act the saint in one episode, and then abruptly switching him to asshole status in the next, isn't "realistic." People are more altruistic than you think, although the media likes to dwell on the more negative aspects of the human race, and since most storytellers these days just claim they're depicting the world that's around them, the negative aspects are all they see.
But let's forget about the question of moral ambiguity for a moment, and just concern ourselves with the issue of positive role models. More children than we know are watching shows like GRIMM every day. What are they to make of a lead character with an incredibly flexible conscience? Michael Knight might not meet your standards of a realistic protagonist, but I'd definitely prefer my kids to watch HIS exploits than Nick Burkhardt's.