"the ending, where Daniel and Sean live together in Mexico, is selfish and does not take into account the wishes of Daniel, who does not want to do this/ does not want to go to Mexico"
okay, I just once again came across a similar comment on youtube, and I could just pass by. but I understand that I have a great need to speak out about this. even if other people have already talked about it.
you know, the statement that Daniel "does not want" to go to Mexico is perhaps the most common, which can be found as a criticism of Blood Brothers. that he just wants an "ordinary, comfortable life" like any child, that Daniel deserves this normal life, which he gets in the high morality endings.
but the problem is that people don't understand one simple fact: with different levels of morality, Daniel has different needs/priorities. with high morality, he prioritizes "morality" and the desire for a normal life, with low morality, he prioritizes his brotherhood with Sean.
people have remembered the image of "high morality Daniel" and believe that this is the only canon for Daniel as a character, forgetting that there is a way of "low morality".
with low morality, Daniel as a character is aimed at only one outcome: to stay together with Sean, not to let them be separated. he decides to cross the border even if Sean decides to surrender. this is what leads to the ending of "Lone Wolf".
the essence of the endings of "Lone Wolf" and "Parting Ways" is that Daniel makes his own decision based on his priorities, even if Sean does not agree with this decision. the statement that "Blood Brothers" is violence against Daniel and what he does not want does not make sense, because existing an ending "Lone Wolf" and because this is what Daniel demands at the border: to cross the border. "we can't let them catch us" and "don't say that, let's just get out of here" when Sean only dares to hint about surrender.
Daniel doesn't want Sean to surrender because it will lead to them being separated. Daniel crosses the border and does not let Sean give up if he decides to do so, because Daniel does not want them to be separated.
In Blood Brothers, Sean acts based on Daniel's wishes, because that's what Daniel wants: cross the border. He does not force Daniel, Daniel himself inclines Sean to this decision and this is the only decision that Daniel will make.
just as the highly moral Daniel cannot cross the border with Sean, and in any case chooses "a normal life instead of living with Sean", the low moral Daniel does not accept Sean's decision to surrender and decides to cross the border, go with Sean to Mexico.
Daniel, who wants a "normal life," gets it. Daniel, who wants to stay with Sean (no matter where, in an abandoned house in the middle of the forest, in the house of his grandparents, on a plantation, in Dali or in Puerto Lobos), wants to stay with Sean and he does not need this "normal" life if it means separation from Sean.
yes, at first he was hesitant about moving to Mexico, and that's fine. many adults are even worried about moving to another city, and here a ten-year-old child is talking about moving to another country. it's okay to doubt. people doubt even when they are offered a better job instead of the usual for them, but uncomfortable and low-paid work. this does not mean that a person "does not want" changes. we are always hesitant when it comes to major changes.
when Sean convinces Daniel that everything will be fine, Daniel stops worrying and begins to fantasize about what their life in Puerto Lobos will be like, enthusiastically waiting for this moment. apparently from the fact that he doesn't want it very much (no).
Daniel doesn't want to go to Mexico so much that he locks Sean in the car and starts attacking the cops in order to clear the way and redirect them to Mexico. see the logic? I don't see it either.
many refer to David's words, but they are not objective (remembering how many times he was seriously wrong in lis1: in relation to Kate, in a relationship with his own stepdaughter, etc.). especially when, in contrast to David, we have characters who speak in defense of Blood Brothers, such as Karen (literally their mother, to whom Daniel has a strong connection) and Finn (to whom Daniel has a strong connection). Brody, whom we meet in episode 1, also approves of their trip to Puerto Lobos. Even Jacob writes in his letter and personally tells them that he wants a successful escape to Puerto Lobos for them.
of course, we must have characters who, in contrast to the "Mexico ending team", will convince us to surrender at the border (grandparents, David, Lyla, even Hank, lol). it would be strange if they didn't exist. but to refer only to them, ignoring the characters who tell us to cross the border, is strange and incorrect.
the low morality Daniel really wants to go to Mexico, because the main thing for him is to stay together with Sean, not to let them be separated. this is exactly what he wants, not a "normal" life, like the highly moral Daniel. and each of the two Daniels acts based on their desires and needs.
stop ignoring the low-moral Daniel and judge him by the standards of the high-normal, pls.
in Blood Brothers, Sean acts based on Daniel's wishes, he contradicts them in the ending (Lone Wolf), where he decides to give him a "normal" life, which he does not need if the price is separation from Sean. you could even say that in Lone Wolf, Sean was deceived by those characters who convinced him that Daniel needed a normal life when in fact he needed Sean.
the only ending that can be said that Sean "uses" Daniel is Parting Ways. Not Blood Brothers.
