Reply To: Emma + Baelfire = Swanfire

[kfchimera]

I think I was talking about this in the Ranch recently with people, but I figure they’re pushing for enough episodes for syndication, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it backfires on them. Once isn’t one of those shows where you can just jump into an episode and catch on right away. If someone catches an episode in the the middle of season 2, and has no previous framework of the characters and the story, what is the probability of them being interested enough to either stick around, or wait until the syndication cycle starts from the beginning again? And the plot holes that are easy enough for the GA to either ignore or miss when episodes are airing every week, or several weeks apart? To me I think those things would be glaringly obvious if watched in a 5 day/week cycle. I’ve been told that Lost hasn’t done very well in syndication and I wouldn’t be surprised if Once is headed for the same outcome.

I definitely think they are pulling for syndication.  Very few show runners dream of putting story first and ratings and employment second.  Why would they?  They might hedge admitting this is a choice because of ego, but Stephen

king said as much about Under The Dome, that to fill a network order means stretching the story.  I think the writers have now embraced anything goes as their motto, in particular plot/world building does not matter at all.  Some fans embrace it too, noting the camp factor, and not expecting realistic behavior from the characters.

In that, I think Neal was too gritty with too many serious drama vibes to work for the ironic campy comedic tone the series prefers.  Maybe MRJ felt uncomfortable and ridiculous with some things and tried to talk with the writers to fix it, you know this does not make sense etc. but they got annoyed at how seriously he took the role, questioning their writing.  Something about the line about comparing a ship going through a portal versus a candle trapping a shadow stuck me as very meta.  Yet I disagree that one is as ridiculous as the other.  They introduced magic beans  as portal devices that were rare and powerful, but why and how could Bae find a candle and know he could trap a shadow?  It came out of nowhere, with no explanation.  A line like it is a magic candle that Tink had or a mermaid gave him, some hint of story to set it up would work wonders more than ugh, stop asking questions just listen to what happens next.  That is lazy writing.  Explanations for fantastic elements do not have to be exposition heavy, but there should be something to build the story and keep characters at consistent levels of power and ability.

it strikes me that A&E have previous teen soap type writing credits, and while Jane does do soft scifi fantasy, she is more a relationship person.  They may not have anyone with significant voice in the writers room who understands the importance of world building, so magic as metaphor changes from plot to plot, character to character leaving giant plot holes, coupons and tumors in the wake.  At the same time, they love the crack-wacky twists, actively seek it out.  One of their fave phrases is just because this does not mean that thing it usually would.  Another is, it is one thing for this but another that–more fine distinctions and hair splitting.

I did some surfing of that forum associated with Previously TV and of course I see a familiar tone of villain glorification and shipping, hero bashing but also  several more sensible takes, looking at storytelling choices and lots of posts I feel say things I would say.   It is not Neal friendly territory but there are enough voices talking about flawed storytelling choices and lost potential rather than ascribing a “he deserved to die so it was good story” attitude.  There are one or two posts like that and they annoy me but people seem to ignore pointing out the obvious maybe in favor of peace, I do not know.  I do not want to register there to argue with anyone but there are some posts that are different to what gets said here and are thought provoking.