Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 98
  1. #31
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 12
    Posts
    1,548
    Quote Originally Posted by evaba View Post
    Thanks for the recommendations! I'll check these books.
    I refer to the three original ones (The Bourne Trilogy) by Robert Ludlum: The Bourne Identity (1980), The Bourne Supremacy, and the Bourne Ultimatum. Story and characters are quite different from the cinema version.

    Quote Originally Posted by evaba View Post
    I'm sure that the scenario you describe could result in some interesting, complex storytelling. Maybe my dislike for the Oliver/Felicity relationship has more to do with how it is done?
    Always possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by evaba View Post
    To me it feels like the writers are forcing a romcom/cliché romance novel narrative onto a rather dark vengeful anti-hero story arc, and it just fails to capture me. I personally think it would have been more interesting if the first phase of the Oliver/Felicity relationship (or any canon relationship between Oliver and a woman) would have been to explore what consequences Oliver's "five years in hell"/killer mindset/PTSD would have for his ability to function in a close emotional relationship,
    They did that and the answer is: his ability to be in a close emotional relationship has started to develop. Before he became a killer Oliver couldn't even share a flat with the woman he claimed to love (Laurel). Afterwards he could at least spend some months with Felicity in a long vacation - or maybe a kind of retreat - that had at least some similarities to a "normal life".

    If you ask me, Oliver was way more dysfunctional before the island than afterwards.

    This is, btw, a big difference between Oliver and David Webb in "The Bourne Trilogy". David Webb was indeed leading a normal life with job, family and all, before becoming Delta. But Oliver's life never had been that normal. He never had any teachers he respected and he could learn from, his parents gave him everything he wanted but never good examples or boundaries that would have lead to any kind of responsibility or compassion. He was scared of everything regarding responsibility or change as a whole. He had nothing he was good at and could be proud of. We saw similar psychological problems in Thea and Tommy in season one. Both were full of insecurity and pain - and I think so was Oliver before the island.

    Quote Originally Posted by evaba View Post
    or how his woman would deal with the fact that the man she loves sometimes turns into a coldblooded killer.
    They started to do that with Laurel. There were a few scenes with Felicity, too, in season one where they seemed to go there but Felicity was not developed enough then to go through with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by evaba View Post
    Instead we got Guggenheim sending fake postcards from Olicity's happy "honeymoon" during hiatus, cheesy domestic bliss scenes about failed omelets, even cheesier fake wedding episodes etc. etc.
    I agree about the writing but look at it from the point of view of Oliver developing in the direction of normal. After all these years he finally was not too scared any more to live together with a woman and even propose marriage to her. This "domestic bliss" was something he had not been able to even try before the island. When most of his friends were already in stable relationships and everybody expected it from him he could not even try. Don't you think this inability must have hurt him ?

    Quote Originally Posted by evaba View Post
    The conflicts/dilemmas which would have been interesting and engaging in terms of character development were hardly touched on and instead we had the pointless Baby Momma debacle and forced trust issues that frankly made Felicity look self-centered and unreasonable.
    Yes, season three and four were quite a disaster in many ways. But it seems to me that season five is back on track again. Though of course Felicity is now not in a position any more to be what you described. But at least they develop Felicity now and so far it looks like in the right direction.

  2. #32
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 12
    Posts
    1,548
    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    That was season one Oliver. This seaon ended with him declaring he wasn't that man anymore.
    Odd as this may sound I think he didn't kill Chase because he accepted Chase as teacher. Oliver never accepted anybody as teacher before the island (otherwise he would not have been that bad at school or in the rest of his life), but the life threat by Yao Fei shooting him shortly after his own father killed himself did wonders. Yao Fei threatend Oliver's life: he shot him, then he healed him, let him escape for Oliver to see that there were other dangers on the island and then allowed him back, then he stopped to feed Oliver and Oliver had to, for the first time, learn something or die. He had to kill that bird and prepare it himself - no more coddling. I think this set the example for Oliver regarding teachers. All his later teachers were of the same kind: they established alpha authority first by threatening his life or proving otherwise that they could take it if he didn't do as they wanted.

    Chase did the same, from the beginning he proved to Oliver he could kill if Oliver did not learn what Chase wanted him to learn. That is, IMO, why Oliver so desperately tried to prove Chase wrong by not killing him. I mean, many people who Oliver loves had told Oliver he was a killer, a psychopath, etc: Lance, Laurel, Thea (before she knew the Hood was Oliver), Tommy, and he never tried to prove them wrong or accepted their opinion as something important in the first place. So why Chase of all people? Why did Chase's opinion matter so much to Oliver?

  3. #33
    Chlark Addict BkWurm1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 08
    Location
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    Posts
    2,692
    Of course, in season five saw him return to form when he snapped someone's neck "because nobody can know his secret"! I guess the producers'/writers' gave us this throwback to season one because they thought his S1 killings were kinda cool.
    Mostly I think they did it so they could contrast him at the end of the season when he's once again refusing to kill. The call back line though I'm sure they thought was "cool".

    Also, I really don't think that Oliver declaring that he is a changed man, or Felicity giving him a pep talk about not being a killer somehow exonerates him from the killings he has committed....at least it wouldn't if this were real life. Besides, Felicity telling Oliver that he's not a killer is kind of strange in itself, since she has more or less ordered him to kill thre times (Malcolm, Ra's Damien Dahrk). I'm sure you'll claim that she only told him to kill these men because it was necessary, or because she was fearing for his life, but it's still odd how the woman that so many Olicity fans claim is Oliver's innocent light and salvation is the same woman who urges him to break his no-kill code.
    He's changed from the indiscriminate killer that he was in season one. That guy almost always went for the kill shot even when he didn't have to. THat's the big difference, that and the mindset behind him. And telling him he's not a killer wasn't saying he's never killed or that he hadn't had a very dark period of his life, it's that he's not naturally like that and that NO he doesn't like killing. Neither did Shado, neither did Yow Fei or Tatsu or most of the good guys Oliver met. Liking to kill is not the same thing at all as being pleased you saved yourself or someone else or even delivered "justice". That's liking the result or feeling the rush of sucess, not getting actual pleasure from the act of taking someone's life. I'd say that most people that kill don't like killing itself, just the result. But there are sick and twisted souls that do enjoy the act itself. That's what Chase wanted Oliver to admidt, that he was one of those people and that's what Felicity was saying was not true when she said he wasn't a killer.

    During the six days of torture, Oliver understandably let Chase get in his head and convince him he put on the suit and killed as a way to let him kill cause he liked it. It was a lie about a much more complicated and nuanced reason for his actions.

    That Oliver believed Chase for a while is what kept him out of the green suit, it was only when he accepted that Chase got into his head that he was able to fight his insidious words off. That didn't mean that he hadn't gone about his mission in season one wrong and so yeah, his choice to kill Chase's father rather than hand him over to the authorities alive was a mistake, one he has learned from and that's why he can say he's not the same man he was then.

    And while I agree that Felicity is a bright spot in Oliver's life, one that let him let light into his dark world and start thinking about even having a future for himself, I've been arguing against this simplistic notion that Felicity is some pure and innocent or perfect person since I've been coming to these boards. I kept pointing out that when she's been upset about Oliver breaking his no kill rule, it was always in the context of her knowing how much Oliver didn't want to kill anymore or not wanting a specific kid orphaned. It was never her waving her stance on no killing at Oliver. As of the opener of season two she was even puzzled why Oliver suddenly cared about not killing, but she supported him when he said he could be that person anymore and believed he could just find another way to keep saving the city without killing.

    Felicity has never had this black or white opinion on killling and frankly, I don't think it's her fans that have been insisting that she does. She's always been very pragmatic on the subject, to the point where she didn't judge Sara or Nyssa when she met them and at the end of season four, she was able to make a choice to trade millions of lives for thousands. It's not that Havenrock doesn't stay with her, but it was a necessary choice, one I don't think someone without a more complex understanding of morality would have been able to make. Her ability to handle the very grey world that Oliver lives in has been one of the reasons I've always thought they were well suited.

  4. #34
    Chlark Addict BkWurm1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 08
    Location
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    Posts
    2,692
    They did that and the answer is: his ability to be in a close emotional relationship has started to develop. Before he became a killer Oliver couldn't even share a flat with the woman he claimed to love (Laurel). Afterwards he could at least spend some months with Felicity in a long vacation - or maybe a kind of retreat - that had at least some similarities to a "normal life".
    Killing someone wasn't what developed him emotionally, having to grow up and fight for his very survival is what scraped off the remnants of dude bro Ollie that was never emotionally invested. Oliver being forced to grow up is what changed him and if he'd been able to get off the island without killing, I'm sure he'd still have had the same emotional growth. Just because after he'd killed he was able to grow emotionally doesn't mean it was because he killed. It's like saying well, he had a scruffy beard and a bad haircut for five years and after that experience, he was finally able to develop emotional ties, therefore, the reason he could was because of the scruffy beard and bad hair!

  5. #35
    Chlark Addict BkWurm1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 08
    Location
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    Posts
    2,692
    Quote Originally Posted by Freawaru View Post
    Odd as this may sound I think he didn't kill Chase because he accepted Chase as teacher. Oliver never accepted anybody as teacher before the island (otherwise he would not have been that bad at school or in the rest of his life), but the life threat by Yao Fei shooting him shortly after his own father killed himself did wonders. Yao Fei threatend Oliver's life: he shot him, then he healed him, let him escape for Oliver to see that there were other dangers on the island and then allowed him back, then he stopped to feed Oliver and Oliver had to, for the first time, learn something or die. He had to kill that bird and prepare it himself - no more coddling. I think this set the example for Oliver regarding teachers. All his later teachers were of the same kind: they established alpha authority first by threatening his life or proving otherwise that they could take it if he didn't do as they wanted.

    Chase did the same, from the beginning he proved to Oliver he could kill if Oliver did not learn what Chase wanted him to learn. That is, IMO, why Oliver so desperately tried to prove Chase wrong by not killing him. I mean, many people who Oliver loves had told Oliver he was a killer, a psychopath, etc: Lance, Laurel, Thea (before she knew the Hood was Oliver), Tommy, and he never tried to prove them wrong or accepted their opinion as something important in the first place. So why Chase of all people? Why did Chase's opinion matter so much to Oliver?
    I don't think Oliver saw him as any kind of a teacher.

    Initially Oliver did try to kill Chase. And it resulted in an innocent man dying. I think that was when Oliver started to hesitate again with his kill or no kill rule. But I think if he'd had a clear shot, he'd have killed him. But after being tortured, Oliver didnt' kill Chase because Chase had gotten into his head and even told Oliver that one more kill would break him.

    Oliver suddenly was afraid to kill Chase himself. Afraid what proving Chase "right" would mean for him in the long run. He still wanted him dead so he brought in the Bratva to handle it, but bringing in the Bratva was equally as messed up so Dig stepped in and put an end to that (and recall Felicity supported letting Oliver have them kill Chase if he thought it was the right thing to do).

    Once though that Oliver accepted that Chase had manipulated him into believing something that wasn't true, his reasons for not killing him changed.

    Now the reason he didn't kill Chase was because Chase wanted him to. Later on the island not killing Chase, for this reason, was really smart, but I've argued a few times that there was a window where Oliver probably should have just killed Chase and stopped the madness from progressing, but oh well.

  6. #36
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 13
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    1,140
    He's changed from the indiscriminate killer that he was in season one. That guy almost always went for the kill shot even when he didn't have to. THat's the big difference, that and the mindset behind him.
    So, now Oliver is still a killer, but he is more discriminating about who he's killing? You know, I don't think that is an argument that would stand up in a court, if Oliver were ever to be put on trial for the sixty-something human lives he has taken! Anyway, as I've said before, "Arrow" is not real life, or even a realistic portrayal of crime fighting....it's a CW-style comic book fantasy. I think that those fans who have a problem with Oliver's killings are more concerned about internal consistency and character development than about real life criteria, and there are clearly posters here who don't think that Oliver has evolved or changed much during the past two-three seasons.

    Felicity has never had this black or white opinion on killling and frankly, I don't think it's her fans that have been insisting that she does. She's always been very pragmatic on the subject, to the point where she didn't judge Sara or Nyssa when she met them and at the end of season four, she was able to make a choice to trade millions of lives for thousands. It's not that Havenrock doesn't stay with her, but it was a necessary choice, one I don't think someone without a more complex understanding of morality would have been able to make. Her ability to handle the very grey world that Oliver lives in has been one of the reasons I've always thought they were well suited.
    Given your analysis, it's a real pity that the writers devoted SO little time and attention to the aftermath of Havenrock, or to Felicity's remorse (or at least reaction to what's happened). I mean, she might take a pragmatic stance as you say, but knowing that she has thousands of lives on her conscience (even though she destroyed Havenrock in order to save millions of others) is bound to leave a mark on her. However, all we got was a quick scene with Ragman, and then it was as if Havenrock never had happened. That's a major oversight on the writers' part and something that has damaged Felicity's standing even more in the non-shipper fandom, where many fans feel that she is this teflon character who has horrible things happen to her (or who is forced to commit horrible deeds), but whose characterization remains more or less the same (at least for those of us who are maybe not invested enough in her characterization/storylines to notice all the subtle nuances that you perceive!).
    Last edited by evaba; 07-09-2017 at 04:40 PM.

  7. #37
    Chlark Addict BkWurm1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 08
    Location
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    Posts
    2,692
    =
    evaba;8178220]So, now Oliver is still a killer, but he is more discriminating about who he's killing? You know, I don't think that is an argument that would stand up in a court, if Oliver were ever to be put on trial for the sixty-something human lives he has taken! Anyway, as I've said before, "Arrow" is not real life, or even a realistic portrayal of crime fighting....it's a CW-style comic book fantasy. I think that those fans who have a problem with Oliver's killings are more concerned about internal consistency and character development than about real life criteria, and there are clearly posters here who don't think that Oliver has evolved or changed much during the past two-three seasons.
    Well, we agree that it is not real life so no, I don't try to judge it by real life standards and aren't I lucky not to be among those that think Oliver hasn't evolved much.


    Given your analysis, it's a real pity that the writers devoted SO little time and attention to the aftermath of Havenrock, or to Felicity's remorse (or at least reaction to what's happened). I mean, she might take a pragmatic stance as you say, but knowing that she has thousands of lives on her conscience (even though she destroyed Havenrock in order to save millions of others) is bound to leave a mark on her. However, all we got was a quick scene with Ragman, and then it was as if Havenrock never had happened. That's a major oversight on the writers' part and something that has damaged Felicity's standing even more in the non-shipper fandom, where many fans feel that she is this teflon character who has horrible things happen to her (or who is forced to commit horrible deeds), but whose characterization remains more or less the same (at least for those of us who are maybe not invested enough in her characterization/storylines to notice all the subtle nuances that you perceive!).
    It's a huge pity more time wasn't spent on it even if show runners have said that her whole arc and dark dabbling into Helix was part of the fallout of Havenrock (among other things). I'd have loved to have gotten more on how it was impacting her every day, absolutely, but it's not her show so we only get what we get.

    At the same time though, I find the notion that she should be blamed for saving millions of lives absurd. I don't agree in the least that she has any sins to atone over Havenrock let alone for breaking up with Oliver for his actions.

    No one has to marry anyone they don't want to no matter what the reason and it was DD that sent the nuke and therefore was responsible for killing tens of thousands of people. Felicity didn't even direct the nuke to Havenrock specifically, just that she had a program that could trick the GPS slightly so it would hit further away from Monument Point, which was the only possible adjustment to the nukes direction they could make.

    It's terrible so many died, and having a connection to that would be horrible, but again, DD was responsible, not Felicity or anyone else that was trying to solve the problem.
    Last edited by BkWurm1; 07-09-2017 at 09:59 PM.

  8. #38
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 12
    Posts
    1,548
    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    Killing someone wasn't what developed him emotionally, having to grow up and fight for his very survival is what scraped off the remnants of dude bro Ollie that was never emotionally invested.
    Fight for survival and killing went and go hand in hand for Oliver. All his teachers said so and I think it is what Oliver believes.

    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    Oliver being forced to grow up is what changed him and if he'd been able to get off the island without killing, I'm sure he'd still have had the same emotional growth.
    I doubt that. Pre-island Oliver never thought of or cared about consequences of his actions. His father killed himself - and Oliver finally had to realize there were consequences for actions. Killing someone is about consequences and thus about responsibility for Oliver. When he came back after five years he still had not realized that every action or not action he did had consequences, even whatever he did or said to those he loved. But that killing someone had consequences and thus were his responsibility he had realized (even if not fully). He had realized that he had power, and thus responsibility. Killing and growing up are not separate in Oliver's case.

  9. #39
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 13
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    1,140
    At the same time though, I find the notion that she should be blamed for saving millions of lives absurd. I don't agree in the least that she has any sins to atone over Havenrock let alone for breaking up with Oliver for his actions.
    I agree with you that it is absurd to claim that Felicity is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of people at Havenrock, just like it's absurd to claim that Laurel is responsible for Tommy's death. The only ones who should be blamed are Damien Dahrk and Malcolm Merlyn, because they are the ones who set out to destroy the whole world/the Glades (and it's interesting to note that the megalomania of the Big Bads have grown exponentially since the first season!).

    However, people feel guilty all the time about bad things that they're not responsible for, especially if it happens to a beloved one or if it has a disastrous impact. In fact, even when it comes to lesser disasters, we might feel guilt because we believe that we somehow could have helped or changed the situation. For example, children often feel guilty when their parents quarrel or drink too much, because they believe it's somehow their fault. Conversely, a parent may feel a great guilt if his child starts doing drugs, or otherwise goes astray in his life. Someone who kills a person in a road accident feels guilty, although it may not have been his fault at all. When someone throws himself/herself on the subway tracks and gets killed by a train, the drivers get a sick leave and therapy to be able to deal with what happened. I'm sure a psychologist could come up with many more examples of this very basic human reaction/feeling.

    So, culpability or responsabiliity is no pre-requisite for feeling guilt, even when it comes to fictional characters, who are supposed to represent human beings with a psychological set up that resembles the psychological set up of real humans (and that holds IMHO even in a fantasy show like "Arrow"). So, the if writers had shown Felicity blaming herself, or being depressed/shook up, or having ANY kind of reaction to what happened at Havenrock, it would have made her more human and more easy to become engaged in/empathize with in my eyes. And this could be done without any implications that her remorse or feelings of guilt have anything to do with her being really responsible or culpable. However, the fact that so many people died at Havenrock, by a nuke that she directed there, didn't seem to prompt any kind of discernable emotional reaction or change of behavior in Felicity....in fact, shortly after the disaster she was her usual upbeat/quirky self and the same can be said of the whole of season five. And the short convo with the Ragman seemed more like a perfunctory plot point to show that the writers hadn't completely forgotten about Felicity's involvement in the Havenrock disaster than a genuine character-building storyline or scene.

    So, my problem is not that Felicity was somehow guilty, and that she therefore should have been shown as more affected by the disaster. The problem is that the lack of emotional reaction makes her character portrayal less convincing and interesting. The writers keep putting Felicity through difficult experiences (being paralyzed, nuking a whole city), which are then quickly and easily resolved by a Deus ex Machina plot point. The result is that we hardly ever see Felicity struggle or having emotional reactions to whatever befalls her.

    TBH, it's this lack of a normal human reaction that bothers me a bit about Oliver's killings as well. We may try to explain or analyze his killings and his killer mindset by applying what I would call "folk psychology", but I think that most psychiatrists/psychologists would agree that the ability to kill and then seemingly forget that it's happened (which Oliver has routinely done ever since his season one killing sprees) is the behavior of a sociopath (or maybe a psychopath). That's also why I disagree with Freawaru's interpretation that Oliver has learned that killing has consequences. If I'm to judge by what happens on screen, in 90% of the cases Oliver's killings have no consquences whatsoever for him (legal or psychological)...he just goes on with his life, as if nothing happened, without any remorse or thoughts about his own murderous actions or his victims' friends or family. I guess that's the main reason why I find his portrayal of the tender, caring boyfriend and husband/father to be a bit jarring. Of course this lack of psychological realism is hard to avoid in a series where the main hero is also presented as a killer (because that's what he is, no matter how much we try to sugarcoat his killings it or make them seem noble!)
    Last edited by evaba; 07-21-2017 at 03:19 AM.

  10. #40
    Forum Whiz DoubleDevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 14
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, Germany
    Posts
    997
    The world has a LONG history of making villians into heroes, what we are forgetting in modern society is what made these villians heroes. You have people today justifying criminal activity by claiming to be Robin Hood, they'll even cite what made Robin Hood a hero, but leave the heroic trait out of their own actions by proclaiming themselves (narsistic anyone?) as one of the downtrodden Robin Hood fought for. Oliver Queen's killing I personally could justify (for the most part) in season 1 but as the show continued it has become more and more difficult because most of the killings have nothing to do with helping the downtrodden or the little man. The Punisher killed in Netflix's Daredevil for revenge but in doing so he was removing a criminal element from the streets that everyone was profiting from, not small time thieves or bodyguards but people embracing themselves first regardless of whom they actually harmed in the process while commiting actual criminal activity. I don't see that sort of similarity with Oliver Queen anymore unless it's the big bad the show tries to go out of its way to justify.

  11. #41
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 12
    Posts
    1,548
    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    Liking to kill is not the same thing at all as being pleased you saved yourself or someone else or even delivered "justice". That's liking the result or feeling the rush of sucess, not getting actual pleasure from the act of taking someone's life. I'd say that most people that kill don't like killing itself, just the result. But there are sick and twisted souls that do enjoy the act itself. That's what Chase wanted Oliver to admidt, that he was one of those people and that's what Felicity was saying was not true when she said he wasn't a killer.
    This definition of "like to kill" makes no sense regarding Oliver, IMO. In scenes like killing Chase's father and his men he simply goes though them, killing them, without cherishing the moments or something like that. If he would "like" (your definition) it, the way I like ice cream, he would have prolonged the experience, revelling in it, enjoying every moment. But he does look away almost before he shoots the arrows, never looking at his dying victims, watching them die or something. He kills as if he was weeding, creating a way through a djungle with a machete or something like that. And I think Oliver knows that. So if he worries about "like killing" he must have another definition in mind than yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    During the six days of torture, Oliver understandably let Chase get in his head and convince him he put on the suit and killed as a way to let him kill cause he liked it. It was a lie about a much more complicated and nuanced reason for his actions.
    This makes no sense to me either. It was hardly the first time Oliver was tortured. And probably not the worst, too. The worst likely was the first time by Billy Wintergreen when Oliver had days of fever afterwards and also did not know how much damage Wintergreen did. Remember how he told his own victim on the island season four flashback about how he knew to give plain that will kill, that what will cripple, and that which is simply painful. He knew all the time during Chase's torture what Chase did and how much it would damage him or not. Oliver never broke or let anybody get into his head before. So why should he now?

    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    That Oliver believed Chase for a while is what kept him out of the green suit, it was only when he accepted that Chase got into his head that he was able to fight his insidious words off. That didn't mean that he hadn't gone about his mission in season one wrong and so yeah, his choice to kill Chase's father rather than hand him over to the authorities alive was a mistake, one he has learned from and that's why he can say he's not the same man he was then.
    Handing Chase's father over to the authorities would have solved nothing but only lead to more deaths of innocents. It was no mistake by Oliver. He told Diggle that Chase's father bought all the judges before he went to kill him - and we saw how the justice system in Starling City worked at that time in cases like Moira or Jason Brodoure. I think Oliver stayed out of the green suit because he didn't want to get into a situation where he had to kill or hurt policemen. There was the "shoot on sight" order he gave himself after all.

  12. #42
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 12
    Posts
    1,548
    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    I don't think Oliver saw him as any kind of a teacher.
    How do you explain Oliver's strange attraction to Chase?

    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    Initially Oliver did try to kill Chase. And it resulted in an innocent man dying.
    If you refer to Billy I strongly doubt that. At that point Oliver already knew that Chase had been trained by Talia. And Chase was wearing heavy armor. A simply arrow (or even three) should not have been able to kill him, even if not seeing it coming as we saw that Talia taught her students, including Oliver, how to catch arrows from all directions. Also Oliver shot at the chest, usually the point of strongest armor. Even if Chase would not have caught them the armor should have kept him alive. Guess that is why Oliver looked surprised when the man he had assumed to be Chase was actually dropping after being hit by the arrows.

    I think if at that moment Oliver would really have wanted to kill Chase he would at least have used an explosive arrow or something like that. He did not intend to kill Chase, because Chase had told him that it was about much more than revenge. He had made Oliver curious.

    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    But I think if he'd had a clear shot, he'd have killed him. But after being tortured, Oliver didnt' kill Chase because Chase had gotten into his head and even told Oliver that one more kill would break him.
    I don't think Oliver believed that. I think Oliver's main fear was that he would loose himself if he lost those he loved. Until Malcom told him how stupid this idea was.

    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    Oliver suddenly was afraid to kill Chase himself. Afraid what proving Chase "right" would mean for him in the long run. He still wanted him dead so he brought in the Bratva to handle it, but bringing in the Bratva was equally as messed up so Dig stepped in and put an end to that
    But he only brought in the Bratva after Chase told him so. I mean not exactly the Bratva but Oliver told Chase it was over, Chase had won, but then Chase told him it was not and he was waiting for Oliver's next move. He even congratulated Oliver afterwards about the Bratva move as if it had been a game of chess. Or likely like Slade would have done during their fight training when Oliver had done an unexpected move. Chase treated Oliver the whole time not as a victim of his revenge or even a strong opponent but as a student and Oliver fell for that, again.

    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    Once though that Oliver accepted that Chase had manipulated him into believing something that wasn't true, his reasons for not killing him changed.

    Now the reason he didn't kill Chase was because Chase wanted him to.
    What kind of reason is that? Reverse psychology? He had killed Taiana because she wanted to, because she was a danger to many. Why not do the same for Chase?

    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    Later on the island not killing Chase, for this reason, was really smart, but I've argued a few times that there was a window where Oliver probably should have just killed Chase and stopped the madness from progressing, but oh well.
    I think he didn't kill Chase because Chase had established himself as teacher. He hooked Oliver with telling him it was about much more than revenge, that he would show Oliver who he really was and all that. And Oliver really wants to know what Chase promised. So Oliver played Chase's game as best as he could, trying to learn what Chase promised to teach.

  13. #43
    avi by Keiko Neverending Story's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 12
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by evaba View Post
    I agree with you that it is absurd to claim that Felicity is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of people at Havenrock, just like it's absurd to claim that Laurel is responsible for Tommy's death. The only ones who should be blamed are Damien Dahrk and Malcolm Merlyn, because they are the ones who set out to destroy the whole world/the Glades (and it's interesting to note that the megalomania of the Big Bads have grown exponentially since the first season!).

    However, people feel guilty all the time about bad things that they're not responsible for, especially if it happens to a beloved one or if it has a disastrous impact. In fact, even when it comes to lesser disasters, we might feel guilt because we believe that we somehow could have helped or changed the situation. For example, children often feel guilty when their parents quarrel or drink too much, because they believe it's somehow their fault. Conversely, a parent may feel a great guilt if his child starts doing drugs, or otherwise goes astray in his life. Someone who kills a person in a road accident feels guilty, although it may not have been his fault at all. When someone throws himself/herself on the subway tracks and gets killed by a train, the drivers get a sick leave and therapy to be able to deal with what happened. I'm sure a psychologist could come up with many more examples of this very basic human reaction/feeling.

    So, culpability or responsabiliity is no pre-requisite for feeling guilt, even when it comes to fictional characters, who are supposed to represent human beings with a psychological set up that resembles the psychological set up of real humans (and that holds IMHO even in a fantasy show like "Arrow"). So, the if writers had shown Felicity blaming herself, or being depressed/shook up, or having ANY kind of reaction to what happened at Havenrock, it would have made her more human and more easy to become engaged in/empathize with in my eyes. And this could be done without any implications that her remorse or feelings of guilt have anything to do with her being really responsible or culpable. However, the fact that so many people died at Havenrock, by a nuke that she directed there, didn't seem to prompt any kind of discernable emotional reaction or change of behavior in Felicity....in fact, shortly after the disaster she was her usual upbeat/quirky self and the same can be said of the whole of season five. And the short convo with the Ragman seemed more like a perfunctory plot point to show that the writers hadn't completely forgotten about Felicity's involvement in the Havenrock disaster than a genuine character-building storyline or scene.

    So, my problem is not that Felicity was somehow guilty, and that she therefore should have been shown as more affected by the disaster. The problem is that the lack of emotional reaction makes her character portrayal less convincing and interesting. The writers keep putting Felicity through difficult experiences (being paralyzed, nuking a whole city), which are then quickly and easily resolved by a Deus ex Machina plot point. The result is that we hardly ever see Felicity struggle or having emotional reactions to whatever befalls her.

    TBH, it's this lack of a normal human reaction that bothers me a bit about Oliver's killings as well. We may try to explain or analyze his killings and his killer mindset by applying what I would call "folk psychology", but I think that most psychiatrists/psychologists would agree that the ability to kill and then seemingly forget that it's happened (which Oliver has routinely done ever since his season one killing sprees) is the behavior of a sociopath (or maybe a psychopath). That's also why I disagree with Freawaru's interpretation that Oliver has learned that killing has consequences. If I'm to judge by what happens on screen, in 90% of the cases Oliver's killings have no consquences whatsoever for him (legal or psychological)...he just goes on with his life, as if nothing happened, without any remorse or thoughts about his own murderous actions or his victim's friends or family. I guess that's the main reason why I find his portrayal of the tender, caring boyfriend and husband/father to be a bit jarring. Of course this lack of psychological realism is hard to avoid in a series where the main hero is also presented as a killer (because that's what he is, no matter how much we try to sugarcoat his killings it or make them seem noble!)
    I totally agree.

  14. #44
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 12
    Posts
    1,548
    Quote Originally Posted by evaba View Post
    So, my problem is not that Felicity was somehow guilty, and that she therefore should have been shown as more affected by the disaster. The problem is that the lack of emotional reaction makes her character portrayal less convincing and interesting. The writers keep putting Felicity through difficult experiences (being paralyzed, nuking a whole city), which are then quickly and easily resolved by a Deus ex Machina plot point. The result is that we hardly ever see Felicity struggle or having emotional reactions to whatever befalls her.
    I agree, they could write Felicity better, more human. As to Oliver, I think the idea is that he is so strange, so different.

    Quote Originally Posted by evaba View Post
    TBH, it's this lack of a normal human reaction that bothers me a bit about Oliver's killings as well. We may try to explain or analyze his killings and his killer mindset by applying what I would call "folk psychology", but I think that most psychiatrists/psychologists would agree that the ability to kill and then seemingly forget that it's happened (which Oliver has routinely done ever since his season one killing sprees) is the behavior of a sociopath (or maybe a psychopath).
    My problem with this analysis is that in this case most male humans of the last 10000 years or so were sociopaths or psychopaths. War, killing soldiers, killing women and children of the lands that were conquered was standard procedure for humankind for at least that time. Still, those men went home to their families and loved them. If we look back into human history we see a history full of killers, who on the other hand went back to their families and turned farmers, etc, again.

    I think the idea that killing humans is wrong and is only done by psychopaths or so is a new idea, a few hundred years old. The reason likely is that humans cannot kill each other as easily and without consequences as before because now there are weapons that can eradicate all of humankind. It started when wars and killings changed from the direct man to man fights with swords and even bows where skill was necessary to survive and win. A warrior could be proud of himself, and was taught to be and accepted as hero at his home after killing, when the years of training and his courage proved true. But anybody can fire a gun and kill. So once the efficient and effortless guns and bombs started to become the main weapons and killing became faceless and being killed a matter of bad luck the idea that all killing was wrong started to develop. Nowadays in our culture we are taught that from early childhood, just as intense as in earlier times future warriors, conquerors and defenders of their land and whatever crown there was, were taught from early childhood how good and right it was to kill the enemy (which included children and babies that might grow up to take revenge). So while we might say that there is something wrong with killers in our culture because the culture didn't work in them, in other times pacifists were considered the ones the culture didn't work in and thus something had to be wrong in them.

    Also, the first times Oliver killed had an impact. The routine only came later.

    Quote Originally Posted by evaba View Post
    That's also why I disagree with Freawaru's interpretation that Oliver has learned that killing has consequences. If I'm to judge by what happens on screen, in 90% of the cases Oliver's killings have no consquences whatsoever for him (legal or psychological)...he just goes on with his life, as if nothing happened, without any remorse or thoughts about his own murderous actions or his victim's friends or family.
    I agree, most of the time it does not affect him, yet. But still it is a big step from how he was before the island. He clearly had a bad conscience about killing Vlad and Taiana for example. As to most of the others he just feels as much about them as Archilles when killing his way into Troja. And remember, Archilles was and is considered one of the most heroic and flawless heroes of ancient Greece.

  15. #45
    Forum Whiz DoubleDevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 14
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, Germany
    Posts
    997
    I agree with Freawaru, it's a cultural thing that has slowly evolved over time that killing ones enemies is frowned upon just as the misconception that one must be traumatized or psychotic for taking the life of another human being. Our society today has set a standard in which most fall into one of the above yet there still are the exceptions to the rule and heroes are generally an exception to almost any rule, it's one reason Frank Castle wouldn't accept mental illness as a defense during his trial. He isn't a sociopath nor is he traumatized by taking a life, it's something he just does because he doesn't conform to the moral and social standard, he applies the same standard as those that he hunts down. The more liberal take is that Frank is mentally ill and often depicted that way (in order to reenforce our moral and social standard that killing is a bad thing), I don't see it that way nor was he envisioned as such when he was converted from the adult novels.
    Last edited by DoubleDevil; 07-10-2017 at 01:03 PM.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •