- This topic has 116 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In the enchanted Forest, good always wins. So I’m sure that while the villains may try to get their happy endings and slaughter the heroes, lik in the origina EF, the will always fail. “The game is rigged! The villains never win” – Cruella De Vil.
Rumple just found a way to change fate so that the odds are now stacked against the heroes, rather than the villains. As Rumple said, “it’s time the villains got their happy endings.” So, at least temporarily, the villains will become the heroes and the heroes become the villains in this AU. However, I do agree that things are going to be reset when Henry becomes the next author, and according to Henry, “good always wins.” I think Henry will put things to rights, by undoing the AU, thereby “undoing” Rumple in the process. Rumple will go back to being a villain, and may not get his happy ending. As Rumple once said, “I’m a villain, and villains don’t get happy endings.”
[adrotate group="5"]"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy
Slight plot hole in Regina and Snow switching roles. Regina is older than Snow. If Regina was a child (say 10 because that was the age Snow was when she told Cora about Daniel) when she told Snow’s secret, then Snow would’ve only been 2 at the time if not younger. Unless this is an intentional plot hole to make the characters realise something is amiss, the James might not be the guy we think he is. A 2 year old Snow’s true love could’ve been her beloved Teddy that got taken away from her because of Regina.
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of FelixSlight plot hole in Regina and Snow switching roles. Regina is older than Snow. If Regina was a child (say 10 because that was the age Snow was when she told Cora about Daniel) when she told Snow’s secret, then Snow would’ve only been 2 at the time if not younger. Unless this is an intentional plot hole to make the characters realise something is amiss, the James might not be the guy we think he is. A 2 year old Snow’s true love could’ve been her beloved Teddy that got taken away from her because of Regina.
This goes back to my theory that this AU doesn’t technically alter the past, but simply alters everyone’s memories and personalities. However, who says Regina and Snow had to even be the same ages as they were during Daniel’s death? James actually only died a few days or so before Snow and Charming met, so the date of his death might remain in this AU. That would mean both Regina and Snow would have already been adults during the time of James’ death.
Re: Snow and Regina’s ages, I think @MP’s idea about them both being adults when James died makes a lot of sense. I think the more interesting question is how in heck Emma being the same age as Snow and Charming will make any sense, seeing how in the AU, time wasn’t frozen because there was no dark curse. So how is it that Snow, Charming and Emma all appear to be the same age? Is Emma even Snow’s daughter in the AU? Could Emma be Snow or Charming’s sister instead of their daughter?
"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy
Regina clearly says in the sneak peek that she was a child though?
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of FelixRegina clearly says in the sneak peek that she was a child though?
*Re-watches clip* You’re right. Well I’ll go back to my theory about the AU not technically altering the past, but simply altering everyone’s memories and personalities.
Regina clearly says in the sneak peek that she was a child though?
True, but according to MP’s theory, this AU didn’t actually change the original story’s timeline. Instead, the author just changed the characters’ memories. (I think I’m starting to buy this theory the more I think about it). Therefore, even though AU-Regina thinks she did something as a child to lead to James’ death, she didn’t really. James actually still died in a duel, since the events of the original story remain true, even if the AU characters currently don’t remember their past lives.
But that still leaves my question. How will the AU explain Emma being the same age as Snow White and Charming? Will Emma still think she is Charming and Snow’s daughter in the AU? Or will Emma think she is somebody else’s daughter?
"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy
So, a philosophical question with all this messy hero/villains switcheroo. I guess Rumple’s primary idea is to “re-rig” the game — if villains never get happy endings, then the statement “it’s time for the villains to get their happy endings” is actually a logical fallacy (since this is admittedly impossible ). The only way to do it is to change the whole armature of the story by inverting everyone’s morality meter. But arguably, from the previews and screen shots, we are dropped into a point of the story where there aren’t any happy endings yet. As such, they all still have to make decisions about which way to go. So how does this work? I can think of three scenarios:
1) either everyone is guided by their new morality meter, and decisions emerge accordingly (so, evil is not born, it’s made — the line between heroes and villains is truly determined by circumstances and the starting parameters)
2) or everyone progressively “slips back” into their old (canonical) identities (evil is born, villains will be villains, “once an addict always an addict,” there is no real redemption/change possible)
3) some former heroes find ways to climb out of their newly assigned villainy, but others don’t. Same with villains — some former villains find ways to be good, while other slip back (so the playing field is uneven, or it’s simply random luck)
If it’s scenario #1&3, then what are the ethics of correcting the AU as folks here have been theorizing about Henry? If to correct the AU is to go back to the story we know, then wouldn’t that, in fact, confirm Rumple’s point that the odds are, indeed, stacked against the villains? Wouldn’t it also annul any redemption that the (former) villains might have achieved in the AU? One might argue that it isn’t fair to endanger the good guys in the normal version for the sake of the villains because they’ve actually made their own decisions, but we actually don’t know that now, since Isaac’s rewrite is also an AU of sorts. From what I understand, the only acceptable role for the Author is to record, so anything other than resetting the story to before Isaac started meddling would be pretty morally murky.
If it’s scenario #2, then the show seems to have come to the opposite conclusion from where it started.
Regina clearly says in the sneak peek that she was a child though?
*Re-watches clip* You’re right. Well I’ll go back to my theory about the AU not technically altering the past, but simply altering everyone’s memories and personalities.
Events stayed the same, but memories were swapped amongst heroes and villains.
It’s like a curse…Regina is still older than Snow, but both are under the impression of this AU which causes them to not be aware of the truth of what’s occurring.
Overall…I think this episode will be interesting!!!
"If you go as far as you can see...you will then see enough to go even further." - Finn Balor
The topic ‘421/422 Finale: Sneak Peeks (1 -3)’ is closed to new replies.