- This topic has 24 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
She’s had the period of time between Tiny and this episode where she had fallen off her redemption wagon. If this curse was an option to get Henry to love her, why hasn’t Regina tried it already?
Because she thought her mother, Cora, could solve all her problems. Her mother manipulated her enough to make Regina believe that she had all the solutions. It was only in Miller’s Daughter that Regina began to question what Cora’s true motivations were, that perhaps getting Henry back for Regina wasn’t Cora’s true intentions.
Plus, without knowing specifically how this curse works, Henry wasn’t in town until this past episode. He was in NY. And Tiny was the first episode where Cora and Regina were working together, before then Regina was trying not to use magic, she wanted to be worthy of Henry.[adrotate group="5"]"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"I have this nasty suspicion Rumpel will use it on Belle, and that triggers Lacey… Everything better than losing her in his mind.
According to a spoiler interview the phone from call from Miller's Daughter helps trigger Lacey and when Rumple goes to the hospital in 19 to see her, Belle/Lacey tells him that she can tell they had a past together, but she still doesn't know him. So he's not going to use it on her.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Rumple is very, very careful about words and lies plenty through omission, but most of the time when he does tell you things, he tells the (at least literal) truth. I don’t think we can bank on him making the whole thing up in this case.
Keeper of Belle's Gold magic, sand dollar, cloaks, purple FTL outfit, spell scroll, library key, copy of Romeo and Juliet, and cry-muffling pillow, Rumple's doll, overcoat, and strength, and The Timeline. My spreadsheet: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6r8CySCCWd9R0RUNm4xR3RhMEU/view?usp=sharing
@KFChimera wrote:
I thought the writers said Cora could not take Emma’s heart in that moment because Emma was not her original target, and Emma was sacrificing herself to save Snow. So I’m not sure that Emma’s innate magic or status as the savior was what kept Cora at bay. I don’t think that the writers want us to think Emma (or anyone else with love) is invincible all the time. I think Regina could rip out Snow’s heart in the right circumstance.
Do you have a link for this, or is this your opinion? In my opinion, Emma is true love and therefore her heart cannot be taken. It could have been passed onto Emma from Snow though because her heart is pure and good.
I don’t bookmark interview or twitter answers, so I don’t have a link. I think the context of the question was something like “Do other true-love Babies have powers (like Cinderella’s baby) or is Emma special”. Now that I think about it, in that episode Gold tells Emma her magic comes from being true love. So if the writers changed their minds, it is kind of something they fudged and have not yet followed up on screen. If Regina takes Snow’s heart, they should either eventually show that Eva and Leo were not true love, or they should somehow explain why Emma could block Cora.
“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?” -- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass
[There’s something more to Emma than being the child of true love (maybe about being the saviour), in the sense that not all “true love babies” are capable of powerful magic
http://thestraggletag.tumblr.com/post/45242358500/highlights-from-jane-espensons-interview
I don’t think the heart thing will work with Emma, and Henry. I think Emma had the magic to save Snow White because she was sent in an enchanted tree (cabinet). 😐
This is just from an article. The writer has added in the rest. Sorry, but I don’t believe anything I hear/read unless it is specifically stated by the directors/cast/writers.
PriceofMagic : I like your theory about Rumple using the curse on Baelfire. That could very well be the ‘game-changer’. I had actually though that the ‘game-changer’ was Balfire finding out that Rumple killed his mother – unless he already knows.
@Jolly Roger wrote:
This is just from an article. The writer has added in the rest. Sorry, but I don’t believe anything I hear/read unless it is specifically stated by the directors/cast/writers.
PriceofMagic : I like your theory about Rumple using the curse on Baelfire. That could very well be the ‘game-changer’. I had actually though that the ‘game-changer’ was Balfire finding out that Rumple killed his mother – unless he already knows.
I think the game changer is he turns Bae 14 again then takes Bae with him to Neverland so he never has to grow up.
@steliokontos1 wrote:
@Jolly Roger wrote:
This is just from an article. The writer has added in the rest. Sorry, but I don’t believe anything I hear/read unless it is specifically stated by the directors/cast/writers.
PriceofMagic : I like your theory about Rumple using the curse on Baelfire. That could very well be the ‘game-changer’. I had actually though that the ‘game-changer’ was Balfire finding out that Rumple killed his mother – unless he already knows.
I think the game changer is he turns Bae 14 again then takes Bae with him to Neverland so he never has to grow up.
Wow…that sure does sound like something Rumple would do. So you think that it is young Baelfire who is Rumples’ undoing?
The topic ‘based on the promo — theory’ is closed to new replies.