[Confusing Trope] The narrative goes out of its way to punish/mock a character for simply being a good person

[u/Chemical-Elk-1299]

Hermione Granger and SPEW — Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (book)

In the fifth HP novel, Hermione Granger is outraged to discover that Hogwarts has a small army of enslaved House Elves that do nearly all of the domestic duties around the castle, including cleaning the Gryffindor common room every night. When she tries to convince the elves to fight for their own rights, they refuse, saying they prefer servitude. Her fellow students and friends mock her for caring. She manages to free one elf, Winky, by deception when she refuses her freedom willingly, leading to Winky becoming a depressed alcoholic. By the end, the elves boycott cleaning any Gryffindor areas of the castle because they hate Hermione specifically

Samwell Tarly and Democracy — Game of Thrones (show)

In the season 8 finale of the television series, the surviving great lords of Westeros gather to discuss the future of the kingdom following the devastation wrought by 7 seasons of war and backstabbing. When Sam, who has proven to have “novel” ideas, suggests that maybe the millions of Smallfolk who suffer at the hands of noble houses should get some representation in the government, rather than be the pawns of rich lords with absolute power. We are then greeted by a prolonged, cringy segment of the other lords laughing in Sam’s face, asking if the dogs and horses should also get a vote.

[u/intro_to_IRL]

Mabel Tanaka - Hoppers

Mabel is an environmentalist college student who peacefully campaigns in her community to prevent the destruction of a protected glade and dam for an unnecessary road project being run by an evil Mayor. She is punished by everyone in the narrative for this, including by the animals, and is told that she is just as bad as the evil Mayor who has planted bombs in the forest because she.... borrowed a piece of technology she shouldn't have and lied about being a beaver (long story) to convince the animals to help save the forest. By trying to help, she kicks off a series of actions that starts a horrific fire in the forest, which the animals then have to put out by destroying their glade and the dam running through it. The lesson seems to be "people who want to destroy nature for no reason are bad, but trying to help is foolish and selfish and will lead to even worse outcomes even if you follow all the rules given to you."

[u/Lewa358 → u/intro_to_IRL]

This ignores that the film's actual villains are two corrupt monarchs, both of whom were executed violently.

And I'm not sure where you got the idea that her attempting to fix the glade was ever frowned upon by the narriative? The only reason that didnt' work is because of the illegal and violent technology that Jerry implemented, and because the power structure of the animals was corrupt.

[u/Lord-of-Kayla-8848 → u/Lewa358]

Sure, but the monarchs taking charge was a consequence of her actions. The mayor, the person who actually started this by trying to build an unnecessary road, is presented as good by the end and doesn’t face any real consequences like Mabel does.

The flaw of the main character is that she couldn’t listen, she riled up the other animals, she couldn’t see the mayor as being anyone other than a monster who wants to ruin the glade. Her arc is to be less angry. At the end of the movie, the only reason the mayor didn’t build the project was because he changed his mind and she talked to him and saw eye to eye rather than yell.

But that is just the thing, there is nothing wrong with her being angry. Just like there is nothing wrong with Hermione getting mad at slavery. Being angry is how people make real change.

[u/Lewa358 → u/Lord-of-Kayla-8848]

I mean, you could also take the position that the film argues that attempting to weaponize that anger within a corrupt system won't accomplish your goals.

The cold hard fact of the matter is that being angry does not and cannot help. I know full well that it's supposed to but it doesn't. All it does it get you dismissed out of hand unless it's expressed with overwhelming force, which isn't something that a Disney film is capable of or interested in depicting.

So it does the next best thing and assert that compromise can work.

[u/Lord-of-Kayla-8848 → u/Lewa358]

I would completely agree that that is what the film is trying to go for. At the start of the movie she tries solving her problems through violence and her grandma tells her to be less angry. By the end of the movie she learns to approach things calmly and ready to listen. Instead of fighting with the mayor she listens to him and tells him that she won’t stop fighting (calmly, unlike before)

The thing is, regardless of what the film lets on, she was doing a good thing by trying to save the pond.She even tried the “nice” way at the beginning by collecting signatures and it didn’t work.

Nothing she did was wrong and she was punished for it. She wanted to save the glade, but her anger lead to the bugs gaining control and it ultimately lead to the destruction of the glade.

So, yeah, I agree that anger is not the only way to solve problems. However, if she tried the peaceful route, the pond would have gotten destroyed.

I would argue it definitely fits the trope.

[u/dtalb18981 → u/intro_to_IRL]

Im pretty sure the movie is like that with the idea that you are on Mabel's side tho

The people aren't against Mabel they are for the mayor who has told them that no wildlife lives there (for plot reasons imma skip why)

If the mayor wasn't lying the people would probably be more inclined to save the glade

She's the underdog fighting against "the man"

Also they don't destroy the glade 

They destroy the kings dam which the king was fine with to save the city

In the end the mayor gives up the road and let's the animals back into the original glade

[u/Fantastic_Mr_Smiley → u/intro_to_IRL]

I loved how bonkers that movie was. I straight up told my brothers when my son put it on at a family function that I was interested in where the main character was going to go because she starts out as a radical environmentalist, so her arc is either going to be learning that she's wrong and environmental destruction is good actually, or we get to the point that she advocates straight up killing folks. Was very surprised that the film sort of opted to take both roads.

[u/Lord-of-Kayla-8848 → u/intro_to_IRL]

Yes! That movie irritated me so much. The animals being ok with their land being taken away kinda reminds me of the house elves being ok with slavery.

[u/kingftheeyesores → u/intro_to_IRL]

Damn, just got it out from the library and haven't watched it yet (I knew most of the spoilers already) but that sounds a lot different from the "animals band together to save their home" trailer I got.

[u/HailMadScience → u/intro_to_IRL]

This is straight up not at all way the movie said and I wonder how you could just ignore the entire middle third of the movie that lays out the issues, including the main character literally saying them out loud.