Values Dissonance/Resonance Cleanup

From Police Quest:

• Values Dissonance: Suffice to say, people often find the premise that you have to follow procedure otherwise you get a game over a little harder to swallow these days after Police Brutality and the militarisation of American police has been brought to greater attention.

I wish I could delete these types of entries on sight. What exactly is the 'Values Dissonance' here, that police procedure is no longer considered important?

The test I'm starting to apply is whether these entries still work if you change the profession. Would Doctor Quest, a hypothetical game about the importance of following proper hospital procedure, be cited on the basis of incidents of medical malpractice and other systemic issues within the medical field becoming better known?

Edited by Dramatic on Mar 20th 2024 at 10:17:02 AM

There is also another one in YMMV.Police Quest 4 Open Season:

• Values Dissonance: Open Season easily takes the cake in this department, being full of material that takes a fundamentally deeply unsympathetic and even outright bigoted view on racial and sexual minorities, and poor people in general, portraying them as freaks and deviants at best and violent, mentally unstable threats to "normal" (e.i. predominantly white, straight and middle-class) citizens and police officers at worst. This stuff was already at least a bit problematic even back in the early 1990s, when the game was released, but in hindsight and knowing much of it was a result of the retired and infamous Police Chief Daryl F. Gates' input on the game, it paints an especially bleak and even damning view of how an older, White, conservative police officer views the world and the people he is policing, which is undoubtedly going to rub a lot more people the wrong way in the late 2010s and 2020s, where there is generally greater awareness and condemnation of Police Brutality and overreach.

While the idea of a game being tied to a very controversial police chief would definitely not fly today, it still suffers from the problems you have already mentioned. Police media is still produced nowadays, even in the US, without any problems, so I think both examples should be deleted.

Valdo

Yeah honestly for those BLM/police hindsight examples it was stated that you should just cut them on the spot, so I'd assume the same logic would apply here and you can just simply cut them without the thread.

There were 2 examples I wanted to bring up though:

Code Lyoko S 1 E 9:

• Values Dissonance: The teacher's insistence on keeping the students' cellphones comes off as almost Lethally Stupid these days, but back when this episode was made (2003), cellphones in class was a much more hot button topic than it is today, with schools outright banning kids from even bringing a cellphone into the building.

Even today though, a lot of teachers forbid using phones in the classroom as they can be a distraction and interrupt the lesson. This isn't dissonance since it still happens today.

The New Adventures Of Winnie The Pooh S 1 E13a Honey For A Bunny:

• Values Dissonance : It's unlikely any children's cartoon (few adult shows come to that) these days would uncritically show a main character spring cleaning by taking stuff to a rubbish dump.

I feel like you could still have characters throw out stuff while cleaning their houses in current kids cartoons, while recycling is better that doesn't mean you can't show the other.

The Brady Bunch S 5 E 17 Welcome Aboard:

• Values Dissonance: Oliver's parents. Back in the 50's when there had been a lot less research considering the effects of essentially departing from a child for a long period of time, but now Oliver's insecurity while adjusting is a textbook response of a kid who's going to be separate from his parents from a long time.

I'm confused how this is dissonance if it is saying that he would have the same reaction today if his parents left. I guess maybe they are saying parents wouldn't leave their kids today but sadly some still do so unsure.

Definitely cut the Winnie the Pooh one. The Brady Bunch one doesn't make sense to me as written; what is dissonance here? That the parents separated from their child for a long time?

Edited by DoktorvonEurotrash on Mar 21st 2024 at 6:12:34 AM

Regarding that first one, my state recently passed a law restricting students from using their phones during class time, so cellphone use during school is still a hot-button topic.

I don't think that schools would still be outright banning students from even bringing their phones in the building, especially when you consider that there are some legitimate reasons why students would need to have their phones with them (for instance, if they're involved in some kind of after-school activities and need to call/text their parents to let them know when it's time for them to be picked up), but it's not like there are no restrictions at all regarding how students can use their phones when they're at school.

Cold turkey's getting stale. Tonight I'm eating crow.

I went to high school in 2014-2017 and they were still gung-ho on taking every student's phone if they saw it used outside of the cafeteria. It's still a concern, possibly even moreso now that phones are used for so much more.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

I sent Lyoko and Pooh to the cut list, but I would like more feedback on the Brady Bunch example since it's just kinda confusing.

I think what is meant is that Oliver is an accurate and realistic representation of a child who has been separated from his parents, which is very surprising considering that it came out in the 60's, when people didn't even fully understand the effects of separating a child from their parents. That sounds more like Values Resonance than Values Dissonance but it doesn't really matter anyway because the work already has an example of Accidentally-Correct Writing that explains what this example is trying to say, but much better. So, I say cut it.

Edited by SoyValdo7 on Mar 23rd 2024 at 6:21:02 AM

Valdo

This example from YMMV.Back To The Future 1 was moved to the discussion page:

• The fact that the Doc was willing to work with terrorists (albeit to rip them off) is treated relatively lightly by comparison to how it almost certainly would have been post-9/11 is jarring to a 21st-century audience. Whilst it comes with predictably brutal consequences (it gets better), demonstrating why exactly messing around with terrorists is a bad idea, Marty seems much more shocked that the time machine is nuclear-powered and the Doc had to (illegally) acquire plutonium to power it than the precise details of how.

The reason given by the troper ~N Ninja is as follows: "wut... Doc didn't WORK for the terrorists, he SCAMED them. Ignoring the fact that you'll be far more likely to find a terrorist who learned of a physicist and "recruited" him at gunpoint than a physicist who put a newspaper ad of "Does anyone want help building a nuke?", the fact is, the terrorists asked him to make a nuke for them which he DIDN'T do. The movie isn't exactly clear on how their "cooperation" came to be, but it's clear what they wanted his help with and how it turned out. There is nothing he did FOR the terrorist, so how is screwing them over supposed to be VD?"

For my own two cents, I think what the entry was getting at was that it was treating the matter somewhat comedically with the audacity of it and that such an occurrence would probably be treated with more gravity post 9/11. Any additional thoughts?

Edit: Not sure if the ping function worked.

Edited by costanton11 on Apr 24th 2024 at 9:46:22 AM

Wasn't there a cut that edited out references to terrorism due to post-9/11 sensitivity? That suggests that that aspect of the film was looked upon differently than it was in the eighties.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

Yeah, no one is arguing that Doc was actually willing to help the terrorists or that his intentions were anything but trying to scam them.

The issue is that it's played in a relatively comedic light, + both Marty and Doc seems awfully oblivious of just how dangerous the whole "scamming terrorist" ploy is.

Like personally I have 0 issues with that aspect of the movie yet I agree that it counts as VD because, beyond my own personal opinion of what's funny, it reflects an attitude that has changed post-9/11. American movies today touch the topic of terrorism with different levity.

That's something important about VD that I feel a lot of people miss: It's not really about how you personally feel about [aspect of a work], it's about how that aspect compares when contextualized to current wide societal values and what's now acceptable in media, far beyond your own personal values.

From and , sounds to me like it's legit.

Added it back.

From Unnatural Death:

• Values Resonance: The culprit is an outwardly-wholesome white girl playing the Wounded Gazelle Gambit by murdering someone, faking her own kidnapping, and pretending they were victims of a Scary Minority Suspect.

I don't really think the book can be said to espouse anti-racist values just because a Scary Minority Suspect is suspected and the killer is someone else.

This is on Ranma ½:

• Values Dissonance:
  • For a series in which characters of both sexes frequently go topless or nude, gender-bending antics abound, and a major character is an underwear fetishist, Ranma's approach to sexuality is surprisingly innocent. As hormone-crazed as they are, characters rarely think about or attempt any kind of sexual act beyond dating, kissing, and PG-level intimacy. Actual sex is never directly discussed even euphemistically, and is rather at most subtly suggested.

This is honestly yet another Values based example that I can't even figure out what it's trying to say...

Edited by fragglelover on Apr 23rd 2024 at 8:23:02 AM

Yes, it's just...saying what happens in the story without any sort of acknowledgement of what values are being discussed.

Cut for being a (Very long) ZCE.

Found this on YMMV.Legally Blonde and I don't think it fits.

• The amount of ridicule, condescension, and abuse Elle gets from both men and many so-called feminists just for being a pretty blonde girl has gained relevance as many film studios have promoted the troubling idea that being feminine is somehow a weakness.

---

I'm not saying there wasn't a backlash towards femininity at some point in the past, but the Real Women Don't Wear Dresses mindset is long dead and it wasn't that prevalent to begin with. Not saying the Girl-Show Ghetto doesn't still exist, just that it's an issue with misogyny in general rather than Real Women Don't Wear Dresses. Girly feminism is very much a thing. Granted, Barbie (2023) I think said something along the lines of "you're expected to be pretty, but not too pretty", so maybe this is valid? Haven't really seen much of this myself though.

Sandbox help wanted.

I would rephrase rather than remove because I think there is a resonance—people do genuinely appreciate the film for showing Elle is brilliant, dedicated, capable, and intelligent while still being very femme and beauty-focused, especially in an age of entertainment where female leads have been criticized as being crafted to be inspiring through hollow physical skills or script shilling with ham-fisted feminist talking points, or "girlboss" ideas that seem allergic to traditional girly aesthetics. The resonance isn't that Elle is being ridiculed, it's that the film's feminism validates her interests and shows her as multifaceted.

Edited by 8BrickMario on Apr 26th 2024 at 1:11:27 AM

I do think the juxtaposition between femininity and feminist empowerment was already something debated at the time, but I can see the argument that it's really risen with social media as there's a greater debate about self-empowerment through traditionally feminine aesthetics. Or something.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

Yeah, I had to read it again to see if if I understood it, but I think it's kinda the opposite of what the troper is implying.

Seems to me feminism these days stresses even more the notion that being ultra-femme isn't wrong or weak or detrimental.

So I'd say the movie has Values Resonance, not for being an "early blow against girlboss or ladette feminism", but because modern feminism, just like this movie, is increasingly open to the notion that someone can be ultra-girly and still empowered (see Barbie).

Granted, "feminism" is not and has never been a monobloc. But it seems to me that most feminists these days do not reject "girlishness" out of hand. They just reject those who make girlishness mandatory for women, or those who actually push for submission to males while talking of girlishness.

There is a bit of an issue with feminine women still being seen as weak / female heros needing to be somewhat edgy and masculine, but that's more of the media's problem than feminism's, and it's changing slowly.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

This was recently added to The Simpsons S8E14 "The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show":

• Values Dissonance: Before the Streaming era when shows were only shown on TV, the vast majority of Western Animation followed a strict episodic format where the status quo never changed (characters never developed, most conflicts introduced would be resolved in the same episode, and if a new character appeared in an episode, they would be gone by the end of it). Most of them would air one episode per day at most and reruns were also a big part of the business, making serialized stories not viable for the most part, so the addition of a new character to a series that followed a strict formula and said character would stay was something that would catch people's attention because it was rare. Nowadays, with most western cartoons having abandoned the episodic format in favor of serialized stories thanks to the streaming model changing how people watch shows, not to mention the boom in popularity of anime, where serialized stories have been the norm for most of its existence, a show adding a new character wouldn't be seen as a "big event"; it would be expected by the audience and seen as a logical way to continue a story.

Needless to say, serialized stories (as well as added new characters to shake things up) existed long before streaming services.

Yeah, and that's got nothing to do with values.

Also shows still can hype up adding a new character even if they're serialized. And the point stands that Itchy & Scratchy just isn't serialized, just as many cartoons still aren't, and a new character would always be a big deal.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

I think there is some validity to the entry, but Values Dissonance is the wrong place for it. As TheArtifact.The Simpsons notes, Itchy & Scratchy was meant as a parody of old cartoons like Tom & Jerry with the violence amped up, but now we have real cartoons that are just as violent, so the joke doesn't land so well. A show with little continuity shaking up the status quo on a mandate by the higher-ups still happens, but it doesn't have quite the same resonance. It's something closer to Parody Displacement. But I think it's still recognised by most audiences, so we can cut the entry.

Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.