Board Thread:Speculation House/@comment-35941743-20190724191227/@comment-14909251-20190724235020

So, I'm gonna respond to things I didn't get a chance to respond to about potential redemption because the previous thread maxed out.

Wilfred J. Pemberley wrote: My, aren't you high and mighty.

Nothing high and mighty about it, only honest. What was there that I hadn't responded to many times already, involved things I wasn't saying.

Yeah, they revised Cinder's fairy godmother and gave her the reverse role that she had in Cinderella. Why, then, do you assume that they're not going to do exactly the same thing with Cinder and her step family? Instead of her stepmother and sisters being evil, they could easily turn out to be nice people, with Cinder acting as the abusive one.

And, with everything we know about Cinder, that would certainly make more sense than the alternative. She strikes me more as the 'bad seed' psychopath who spurned her family's kindness than she does the traumatized victim of abuse. But, then again, I'm looking at it objectively, whereas you are obviously so desperate that she be vindicated that you're willing to believe just about anything so long as it conforms to your desires.

Sure, they could go the really lame and boring route of "the villain was always evil" like your typical lame children's story, but that would be pretty pathetic on the part of the writers. Adam was a somewhat interesting subversion of the Beast, because it didn't mess with it too much. The Beast was very controlling, but eventually was treated as tragic yet decent. Cinder being evil the whole time and her step-family being saints isn't an interesting subversion at all. That isn't even the same story at that point.

Megadracosaurus wrote: Except they aren’t unlikely reasons.

I was specifically talking about the idea that she was somehow pampered in her life.