- This topic has 25,813 replies, 124 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Happy Birthday RG! I can’t top that yarn cake or shamy gif(t)s but have some cake!
I’ve meant to stop by and comment a little on various things, but hard to snatch some time to type. I can skim the thread on my phone, when stuck in a line or something like that, but not enough time to reply at least with my phone typing skills.
So, I hope Keb’s back is better and the recovery is going well. Not as serious, but still I know it mattered to those who watched Grey’s–I’m sorry. I didn’t watch that show, and it sounds like quite the huge change to what it was all about.
That’s really what I think Neal’s death sort of came to mean in a way–his death sort of ended one sort of show and started this change to a show that could best be described this way: Once Upon a Time there was a not-so-epic struggle between the Plot Device Fairy and the Off-screen trolls, in a world where all magic comes with a plot hole and a retcon.
The show used to have heart, characters who talk to one another and subtle emotions and scenarios that had us eager to speculate and discuss, even debate what is good and what is evil. Some still try, but it becomes harder and harder to take any of it seriously when PLOT continues to trump all world-building or character building, and when the writer’s morality from their commentary about what they think they’ve written seems so twisted and odd (and contradictory).
I made it most of the way through the last episode, and its slow-going for me, because I felt Cruella was a fun character and Smurfitt made the most of it and I’m sorry to see her go. My curiosity about what they’d do with her lured me into watching this season but that’s sort of done now.
On the balance, they did try to close some loopholes with her (how she got to the land without magic, how she didn’t age)–but there are still more odd and unexplained things. When the curse reversed, how come Cruella and Ursula didn’t just pop back with everyone else? If its because they were on the wrong side of the town line–well, why didn’t Neal (or Hook for that matter) just go with Emma? I guess there are things the characters think will happen but don’t actually happen, like how the curse didn’t hurt Pinnochio after all.
That of course feeds into how we judge characters –we shouldn’t judge them by what happens, but by what they believed would happen and the choice they made based on that. People continually complain Neal could have helped Emma, stayed with her and judge him as horrible for leaving her–but we don’t know and were not shown many scenes about why August believed Neal had to steer clear. He, like Gepetto and the Blue Fairy, like everyone at the town line, might have just been thinking one thing is true when another was and acted accordingly.
So now we have Emma who thought one thing was true, that Cruella could harm Henry, and acting on that belief. The writers tell us we should condemn her for that, say she crossed a line because of that, perhaps write Snow and Charming as feeling that about Emma–but its so disingenuous on the writer’s parts. Snow didn’t find anything “line crossing” about Red killing Red’s mother to save Snow’s life–if anything the two grew closer. Despite the fans (mostly Evil Regals) who like to reimagine Snow as this prissy, goody-two-shoes who hypocritically judges Regina because she can only see the world in black and white, that’s not how the character was originally presented and written in S1. Snow used to understand the world was complicated–and she even forgave Regina, multiple times. We’ve had seasons of Snow being unwilling to write Regina off completely and hoping she could change, but fearing (with plenty of good reasons) that she might not. So I suppose I’ll wait and see how estranged Snow and Emma get–but I’m rolling my eyes at this whole plot pretty hard.
What makes it worse is, the writers could have more organically created a crisis for Emma based on a storyline they were pushing for her character fairly hard–her mastery of her magic. “I’ve really been practicing” says Emma, at one point this season, and we saw her learn to love her magic in 4A. In 3b we saw her practicing teleporting things–and didn’t she save Henry from his last kidnapper (Zelena) with a teleport spell? If they wanted us to focus on growing Darkness in Emma, it should have been about her inability to find a peaceful solution to the Cruella threat despite having more magical options, not “oh but Cruella wasn’t really a threat after all, oh Emma, how horrible you aren’t omniscient and therefore killed a defenseless person!”Question there though, given all the ways we’ve seen to make someone suffer that don’t involve death, couldn’t Cruella still have been a huge threat, was she really written as defenseless or harmless? Wraiths, sleeping curses, turning people to stone, shrinking them, ok, that all might be out of Cruella’s tool box, but why not call 4 and 20 blackbirds to peck off Henry’s nose? Cover him in mosquito bites to torture him? In real life, a cop can use deadly force to stop serious bodily injury, not just death–so again, the knowledge that Cruella couldn’t kill just doesn’t seem the zinger the writers are saying it was. The more interesting and previously developed question would have been– what else could Emma have done?
If we were talking about Superman, the answer is a lot, and Superman (at least movie/tv versions, with which I’m more familiar) doesn’t really kill. That’s what we expect for a “superhero”, the whole great powers /great responsibility (ok, that was Spiderman but still). If you create a hero with more limited options, absolutely, that hero cannot live up to the standards set by someone with the abilities to know and do things others cannot. The writers could have explored (and who knows maybe they will) what does it mean to Emma to be a hero–did she say to herself, yeah, I could solve this peacefully, but I’ll be judge, jury and executioner, because I don’t believe all life is sacred, and I don’t care about other people, doing the right thing–just protecting what’s mine? Regina usually operates a bit that way–she had a moment of heroic mercy and all that with Zelena in 3b, but here we see her controlling Belle, and threatening her life. I don’t care about “offscreen” anymore, and what “could” have happened to make things less wrong or more right. We can imagine whatever we want, and too often the writers ask us to do that but then change their minds and tell us oh no, THIS happened. That only contributes to the feeling of “retcons”. So without dialog to get to Emma’s internal state and why she did what she did, and what she believed were her options, its hard to judge this situation on the basis of what the writers think was enough for us to know….but that’s par for the course.
[adrotate group="5"]“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
Yarn Cake!! Thanks KFC!
Some still try, but it becomes harder and harder to take any of it seriously when PLOT continues to trump all world-building or character building, and when the writer’s morality from their commentary about what they think they’ve written seems so twisted and odd (and contradictory).
Exactly. It’s hard to have those deep discussions we used to have when the story is focused on shiny and isn’t actually interested in, and only dances around, the more moral and philosophical questions. Or the morals they do present seem to be coming from left field and leave a really ugly taste in my mouth. For example, because Regina and Hook never lied about being paragons of virtue, their villainous deeds are somehow less evil? I mean…that doesn’t make a lick of sense. You mention the heroes don’t kill thing, and I said this on the podcast: the Pilot end with Charming cutting down guards to get his daughter to a magical tree. Snow and Charming fought an entire war to get back their kingdom. Rumple was touted as a hero who saved everyone when he killed Pan. And I’m sure there are other examples I could think of if I sat here for longer. Every storyline and moral quandary is only “arc only.” It’s like I’m expected to wipe my memory after 11 episodes so that A and E can present something new each arc, another story with a different moral thesis but one that runs against the previous stories and morals.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Happy birthday, RG.
. I don’t care about “offscreen” anymore, and what “could” have happened to make things less wrong or more right. We can imagine whatever we want, and too often the writers ask us to do that but then change their minds and tell us oh no, THIS happened. That only contributes to the feeling of “retcons”. So without dialog to get to Emma’s internal state and why she did what she did, and what she believed were her options, its hard to judge this situation on the basis of what the writers think was enough for us to know….but that’s par for the course.
I think part of this is that OUAT has a Chekhov’s gun problem. (I’m sure most are familiar with this trope — the idea, originally a quip by Russian playwright Anton Chekhov, is that if in the first act a gun is hanging on the wall, it should fire by the last act). In OUAT, the writers deliberately hang a number of objects, some of which may be guns, on the wall, and then “retcon” to tell us what’s a gun, and what’s not. What makes this strategy not particularly convincing is that sometimes we’ve been explicitly told that something isn’t a gun, but is, say, a hat. But then, suddenly by act 3, the hat becomes a gun because “magic”!
Regina used to be such a strong sassy independent character but the moment they’ve introduced Robin, everything about her is now all about Robin. For me, OQ is what TV Tropes calls a “romantic plot tumour”. OQ need to get together just so they can stop the will they/ won’t they stuff which is eating up precious screentime when we know they are going to end up together. It’s no coincidence that the times I’ve liked Regina least have involved a situation pertaining to OQ.
Exactly. The problem isn’t the romantic subplot, as you said, it is that it overtakes both the character’s internal conflict, as well as sidelines world building and “cosmological” conflict. In other words, it reduces the drama to a species of “he said, she said.” There’s a perfectly effective and legitimate way of doing both internal conflict and cosmological conflict through the lens of romantic subplots (Buffy is a good example of how this can be done successfully). OUAT isn’t doing it.
WickedRegal wrote: Question: Are they really going to just think that we forgot that Killian having that fake hand showed us who he really is??? I mean…that’s kind of a big deal isn’t it!
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” 🙂 In other words, if you are, as @RG pointed out, a wish fulfillment character, then lo and behold your road to redemption is an easy walk in the park. Actually, the goodification of Hook does the character no favors — at this point he’s a species of Marty Stu with guyliner.
RumplesGirl wrote: Yes, they are really going to forget that. It would help if Will wasn’t the single most wasted character ever on this show. Their treatment of Will might be worse than Ruby’s and Belle’s and Neal’s combined.
And that, here, makes me uniquely sad. Although I think you’re absolutely right. It’s a form of “greed” of sorts if they’re not going to use him. I would guess that this sort of placeholder character prevents the actor from taking on more interesting, rewarding roles, and doesn’t help them with developing their acting CV.
Thanks @Nevermore
Actually, the goodification of Hook does the character no favors — at this point he’s a species of Marty Stu with guyliner.
Marty Stu and former rogue bad boy saved by the love of a good woman.
I wouldn’t care about Hook getting redeemed (it’s in line with the show and their villains) but the fact that all Hook had to do was simply show up when Rumple and Regina have been put through the wringer (and in the former’s case to the point where I barely recognize the character anymore). But with Hook, suddenly the hinted at “dirty work” suddenly becomes “getting cake” and the vile deeds we have seen–beating Belle, shooting Belle, leaving Team Princess in jail to die–is all just “forgotten and forgiven”
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"HAPPY BIRTHDAY @RUMPLESGIRL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I may can’t beat Shamy, but I can sure give Loki!!!!!!!!!!!!
May your birthday today be better than the years before, and may the birthdays to come be even greater for every decade to come!!!!!
"If you go as far as you can see...you will then see enough to go even further." - Finn Balor
Happy Birthday, RG!
The show used to have heart, characters who talk to one another and subtle emotions and scenarios that had us eager to speculate and discuss, even debate what is good and what is evil. Some still try, but it becomes harder and harder to take any of it seriously when PLOT continues to trump all world-building or character building, and when the writer’s morality from their commentary about what they think they’ve written seems so twisted and odd (and contradictory).
@KFC – THAT! Nice to read your insights, as always.
Every storyline and moral quandary is only “arc only.” It’s like I’m expected to wipe my memory after 11 episodes so that A and E can present something new each arc, another story with a different moral thesis but one that runs against the previous stories and morals.
There should be a disclaimer at the start of every episode like at the start of a movie to turn off a cell phone: “Please, turn of your brain, now.
"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
Thanks WR and Slurpeez!
There should be a disclaimer at the start of every episode like at the start of a movie to turn off a cell phone: “Please, turn of your brain, now.
Yup. @TheWatcher raised a question in another thread: do the writers not think about their show hard enough or do we, the audience, think too hard? A and E would really like if we didn’t try to think about the show too hard. Just accept “magic” as a catchall answer but humans are rarely accepting of such a simplistic (and let’s face it, often nonsensical) answer as “magic” so we keep trying to dig deeper while A and E keep handing us more SHINY to distract from the fact that we’re not getting any where.
It’s giving them the old razzle dazzle, to quote Chicago. Stun the audience enough and they’ll never think twice. For example: A and E pull a rabbit from a hat. While you’re busy trying to see if the rabbit is good, bad, morally grey, and figure out how the rabbit fits into the larger worldly and mythological construct, A and E have set the auditorium on fire and are begging you to Tweet about it.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Yup. @TheWatcher raised a question in another thread: do the writers not think about their show hard enough or do we, the audience, think too hard? A and E would really like if we didn’t try to think about the show too hard. Just accept “magic” as a catchall answer but humans are rarely accepting of such a simplistic (and let’s face it, often nonsensical) answer as “magic” so we keep trying to dig deeper while A and E keep handing us more SHINY to distract from the fact that we’re not getting any where. It’s giving them the old razzle dazzle, to quote Chicago. Stun the audience enough and they’ll never think twice. For example: A and E pull a rabbit from a hat. While you’re busy trying to see if the rabbit is good, bad, morally grey, and figure out how the rabbit fits into the larger worldly and mythological construct, A and E have set the auditorium on fire and are begging you to Tweet about it.
PREACH RG!!! PREACH!!!
In Adam and Eddy’s eyes….”Magic” is the excuse for everything, especially with all of these oh so convenient plot devices like “Heart of the Person you hate Most” “Heart of the Person who scolded you the longest” “Heart of the Truest Believer” “Heart with the most resilience”
Next thing you know, the Season 5 Villain will want the person with the “Heart To Make The Best Cheese Toast Sandwich”! Watch out Granny! (rolls eyes and facepalms self)
"If you go as far as you can see...you will then see enough to go even further." - Finn Balor
The topic ‘Emma + Baelfire = Swanfire’ is closed to new replies.