I saw nothing wrong with that Stevie wanted to do. The way its it now, only one member of a family gets to keep their powers and the others lose thiers which will of course cause friction and hurt feelings like it did with Mr. Russo and his siblings.
It doesn't even matter whether Stevie was right, well intentioned but misguided, or evil. Wizards have all types of magical spells to stop people without harming them, which they learned and used in earlier episodes. Alex could have stopped Stevie without killing her by suddenly using one of those spells on her.
And after killing Stevie Alex could have brought Stevie back to life by reversing the spell as soon as they took Stevie's powers away from her. And after Max accidentally shattered Stevie's icy corpse someone could have instantly used a put-back-together spell on Stevie's mutilated remains and then Alex could have reversed the turn-into-ice spell and brought Stevie back to life.
But nobody did that, because they were all too busy talking about how Alex was not as evil as they thought - while standing beside the shattered body of the teenage girl she had just treacherously killed. And then they wandered off on their own business, without showing any visible interest in when - or if - Stevie might be reassembled before melting and then brought back to life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING! WARNING! A gruesome historical parallel is below! Read at your own risk!
According to Niccolo Machiavelli’s history of Florence, Book II, Chapter VIII, in the revolt by the people of Florence, Italy, against Walter of Brienne, Duke of Athens, on July 26, 1343 the Duke was besieged by an angry mob refusing to negotiate unless three persons were turned over to their fury.
…the people and the duke to terms; but the former refused to listen to any whatever, unless Guglielmo da Scesi and his son, with Cerrettieri Bisdomini, were first given up to them. The duke would not consent to this; but being threatened by those who were shut up with him, he was forced to comply. The rage of men is certainly always found greater, and their revenge more furious upon the recovery of liberty, than when it has only been defended.
Gugliemo and his son were placed among the thousands of their enemies, and the latter was not yet eighteen years old, neither his beauty, his innocence, nor his youth, could save him from the fury of the multitude; but both were instantly slain. Those who could not wound them while alive, wounded them after they were dead; and not satisfied with tearing them to pieces; they hewed their bodies with swords, tore them with their hands, and even with their teeth. And that every sense might be satiated with vengeance, having first heard their moans, seen their wounds, and touched their lacerated bodies, they wished even the stomach to be satisfied, that having glutted the external sense, the one within might also have its share. This rabid fury, however hurtful for the father and son, was favorable to Cerrettieri; for the multitude, wearied with the their cruelty toward the former, quite forgot him; so that he not being asked for, remained in the palace, and during night was conveyed safely away by his friends.
So because his father was hated this teenage boy was hacked to pieces by an angry mob and allegedly partially eaten, despite his youth, beauty, and innocence.
Now suppose that some of the boy's young friends were hiding in the palace with him, and when the mob demanded the boy threw him out the door to the mob to save their own lives. And later, when the mob dispersed and it was safe, they left the palace to return to their homes and stood beside what was left of the boy's torso - if anything was left of him besides a few scraps of flesh which might have accidentally fallen onto the street - and made a few jokes and went merrily on their way. Wouldn't you think that those friends would be as evil as the mob considered their victim to be?
As near as I can tell this boy's corpse was mutilated as much as that of any other kid in history, and roughly as much as Stevie's. And the hypothetical story about his hypothetical friends was the closest parallel I could make to the behavior of Alex, Justin, Max, and Harper.
reply
share
magolding
9 years ago
Some people say that because the producer said that Stevie was alive after "The Good, the Bad, and the Alex" Stevie was not killed in "The Good, the Bad, and the Alex" and thus she could not have been murdered by Alex or Max in that episode.
They also say that because the producer said that Stevie is alive it is canon that Stevie is alive.
It's not canon unless it is in the primary source, in this case the tv episodes.
It would have been perfectly easy to have the ending joke include a line that Stevie was calling from wizard prison and Alex deciding whether to take the call. They could have made a final joke based on what Alex decided.
For example, they could have shown Stevie on the phone in wizard prison with thin lines criss-crossing her face where she had been put back together. Stevie could have shouted at Alex asking why she betrayed her and Alex could have told her not to fall to pieces but pull herself together.
And that would have made Stevie being alive fully canonical.
But what I really, really hate is the kids killing Stevie and not immediately bringing her back to life, but leaving up to the next wizard who might come by to decide whether or not to do it.
Alex had learned spells to immobilize someone and make them helpless without hurting them. She should have used such a spell on Stevie but instead turned Stevie into dead matter, and thus killed her. That seems unnecessarily violent. But that wouldn't have been too bad if Alex brought Stevie back to life immediately after taking away Stevie's powers. I mean instantly, as soon as the powers were transferred to Warren, without being distracted by anything. That seems like the very least any non evil wizard in training could do to if they killed someone unnecessarily and wanted to avoid being evil.
In the Bible Jesus was killed but then used his divine power to come back to life. Does any Christian who believes in the resurrection claim that the Romans did not execute Jesus? No, believers in the resurrection say that the Romans executed Jesus and killed him as dead as anybody ever was dead, but then Jesus used his divine power to bring himself back to life. So don't tell me that Stevie was not killed merely because the producer said that she was alive at a later time. she was killed just as dead as Jesus was killed and then was alive at a later time according to the New Testament.
Alex, Justin, and Max had the power to bring inanimate objects to life, so they certainly should have been able to bring a dead person back to life. So they should have turned Stevie from dead, inanimate matter back into a living being as soon as she lost her wizard powers. But instead they talked about other things until Max knocked her over and shattered her.
Then they could have instantly used a reassemble spell on her and then a come back to life spell. But they didn't. Instead they joked and talked about Alex not being as evil as they thought (while standing by the shattered body of the girl Alex had treacherously turned into inanimate, dead matter) and decided where they would go to next.
They cared so little about the life of someone they knew, (and who was so close to Alex that her best friend Harper was jealous) that none of them even bothered to do what for wizards in training was a simple little bring back to life spell on her, but left the mess for some other wizard to clean up and decide whether they wanted to bring Stevie back to life.
Of course most people in our society more or less believe in various monotheistic religions whose priests and holy men like to claim that their God has a monopoly on things like crating life and bringing dead people back to life,and disapprove of stories where science or magic can do those things.
So the creators of Wizards of Waverly Place didn't want to show their wizards bringing dead people back to life and thus rivaling God by using one of the minor powers attributed to God - even though when the Producer said that Stevie was alive it meant that SOME wizard must have been powerful enough to bring people back to life.
But in the FIFTH episode shown the wizards in training used a spell to bring a figurine on atrophy to life, which should be similar in magical difficulty to bringing a dead person back to life. Thus the producers should have known that if the wizards in training were ever shown killing someone they would have to bring that someone back to life immediately or else be considered evil murderers.
But if the wizards in training ever used magic to bring a person back to life some religious persons would complain that it was blasphemous to show a lesser person having the power of God.
if the creators didn't want to get in trouble with religious people by showing the wizards in training bringing people back to life, and if they didn't want to depict the wizards in training as evil persons who would kill someone and not use their vast powers to bring that person back to life, all they had to do was to never show the wizards in training ever killing anybody. Dilemma solved.
But we all know that no kid can ever go for more than a month at a time without killing somebody, right? Ha, ha! Actually most kids go for all 21 years of growing up to adulthood without ever killing even one single person.
Of course most kids who avoid killing anybody while growing up don't have it as easy as the wizards in training do. The wizards in training are shown having tremendous powers to travel in time and in outer space, bring inanimate objects to life, repeat situations over and over again until they can get them right, instantly vanish from any dangerous situation without having to fight to survive, and so on.
It would be just about impossible for any wizard in training to ever be forced by circumstances to kill anybody he or she didn't want to kill. If a wizard in training ever kills somebody, it is voluntary and unnecessary and something he or she wants to do and is not forced by circustances to do, and thus an act of murder.
reply
share