Please comment on this and share it with every Odyssey / Rydell fan you know. I really want to hear your thoughts on it.
Re: The Rydell Revevlations
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 9:08 pm
by Bob
I haven't yet done an in-depth analysis of the source material, but I have to say that I don't think I buy it, and I'd be more inclined to say that what Whit does is wrong (because there are episodes, past and present, where I think that is honestly questionable) than to believe that what Morrie does is right.
Whether Morrie's schemes 'bring out the good in people' is debatable, but it's also somewhat beside the point. As Whit has probably pointed out himself in the past, how you get to a result is as important as the result itself. Sound doctrine isn't just about objectives, but procedure. In almost every episode he's in, Morrie is involved in manipulation, lies (whether by commission or omission), and deceit. Those things are inherently wrong, and the excuse that maybe somebody will react to it in a noble or sacrificial fashion doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't have had to be in that situation in the first place.
The Bible says, "You shall know them by their fruits." The fruits Morrie left, above everything else, are that he isn't trustworthy. (Even Whit, who claims that he knew the general outline of what was going on all along, didn't trust him not to be pulling some kind of trick.) Emily is bothered by her traumatic experiences, but what's just as serious is that she can't feel like she can trust Morrie, Suzu or even Mr. Whittaker. The former two actively worked to stir up problems in her and her friends' lives, and Whit sure didn't help things any (as she is well aware of).
Finally, for a touch of common sense: in this sort of situation, do you think Jack would be okay with all of this? Or Tom?
The whole gist of Jack and Jason's argument in Darkness Before Dawn is broadly over the same sort of issue. Jason (acting in the role of his father's dynamic, adventurous side) says that 'nobody was permanently hurt', and it was worth taking risks to see what good could come out of it. But Jack (as Whit's 'conscience') says that they're endangering children (not even their own children, at that) and it isn't their right or responsibility to do so. It's obvious in retrospect who was right. The fact is that Whit here is the mouthpiece for essentially the same sort of argument as his son once employed, and it's only because we trust Whit and expect that he has more moral authority than Jason that it is made to seem palatable.
Re: The Rydell Revevlations
Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2020 6:51 pm
by ASmouseInTheHouse
I'm pretty late on this, but....
Here are my thoughts on the Rydell Revelations, Part 3
This episode comes in second place (in my ratings) out of the three, with part 1 in first and part 2 in last. There was a lot of action, great music, and fitting climax in part 3. But the finale episode of the Revelations had little to do with the Rydell episodes we've been hearing for the past four years. The whole issue of Morrie being involved with strange things around town was easily explained in part 2 and only briefly mentioned in part 3. For me, that was a disappointment. This episode introduced conflicts we hadn't even had a clue about until now. I think the information about Morrie's past should have been included in the past Rydell Saga episodes, especially Mrs. Mado. We should have met her earlier.
What really shocked me in these episodes was that Whit knew about the escape room. I've read everyone's comments about this on the ToO, and I'm going to have to agree that Whit's decision to leave Emily in the dark sounds off for his character. But Emily didn't sound convinced at his answer either, so maybe the issue will come up in future episodes.
My thoughts on "Was Morrie Right?"
My thoughts on this are basically the same as everyone else's: No, Morrie wasn't right. The only purpose of his 'games' were to test the kids, whether they made the right choice or not. I don't think he actually meant to 'bring out the good in people', not if he was testing them. As Morrie implied in part 2, he had only heard negative things about Christians. It is possible that he expected them to fail his tests. My point is that I don't think he was trying to bring out 'good' in the kids. It just so happened that the victims of his tests chose the right thing.
As Bob said, what Morrie did to achieve the supposed 'good' was wrong. In The Good In People, he lied and broke a promise (as Scientific Guy pointed out in one of his Aio Audio News posts). In A Sacrificial Escape, he trapped Whit and Suzu in the basement and Emily and Matthew in an escape room, tricking them into thinking they were in danger. Even if 'good' came out of these adventures, what Morrie did to get there was wrong.
Re: The Rydell Revevlations
Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2021 6:06 pm
by MasterLink4eva
I have to admit, I was/still am disappointed about the way things are shaping up to be. I expected things to be much more dramatic.
Re: The Rydell Revevlations
Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2021 2:36 pm
by Shadow
. . .honestly, morrie's motivation was. .Really disappointing? Like. .It's just. .I honestly think it's one of the dumbest motivations in the show, tbh. I get where they were coming from, but it just. .Doesn't work. At all.
Re: The Rydell Revevlations
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2021 10:03 am
by cheesesoup123
From the aio wiki
While Lollar has avoided giving a straight answer on the ethicality of Morrie's actions, he claims that Morrie is not the villain and Emily is not the hero of this three-parter.
Does this mean that someone else is the villain and hero? Whit? Mrs. Meido? Suzu? Raymond? Tasha? Matthew? Who?
Though it would be funny if whit was the villain and the hero.
Even funnier if Emily was the villain and Morrie was the hero.