- This topic has 25,813 replies, 124 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
[adrotate group="5"]"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"
EXCUSE ME WHILE I POST THIS ENTIRE THING BECAUSE IT’S SUPER IMPORTANT OKAY
People really do seem to have this disconnect when it comes to Neal and Bae. Like they refuse to recognize that they’re the same character.
I have yet to see anyone explain how Neal was a plot device without displaying an enormous misunderstand of what a plot device actually is. A plot device is something that moves the plot forward, and there are different kinds.
A MacGuffin is an object that’s imbued with a certain importance that isn’t explained, where the importance of the object within the story isn’t what the object is or what it can do, but the actions it sets in motion. It doesn’t take any actions to move the plot forward at any point. (For example, the Maltese Falcon)
A Red Herring is a device that diverts audience attention away from the big, main things that’s happening, making them think that something else is happening than what is actually happening. They’re basically clues or pieces of information that leads the audience in the wrong direction. (Think of all the whodunnits and police procedural shows where it looks like someone did it for awhile, and then at the end we find out it’s someone else. The Third Man’s structure relies on a red herring. From the beginning we think Harry is dead and that the movie is about solving his murder, but it turns out it’s about something else entirely).
Chekov’s Gun is an object that is shown or introduced some place before the end of the story, usually early on, which ends up being used later in the story, usually in a very important way. Oftentimes these objects will be introduced innocuously.
A Deus Ex Machina (something that the OUAT writers use to a nauseating degree) is a device used to end a story, which generally comes out of nowhere, that resolves all problems and loose threads. (For example, the out-of-nowhere potion that ended the Lacey arc)
Those are the big ones that refer to specific objects or people. There are of course other ones which apply to specific moments within the plot (like the Plot Twist, Reversal, Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, Framing Device, Cliffhanger, Story Within a Story, and so on), none of which would normally apply to a single character or object.
I fail to see how Neal is any of the things listed above. He’s not a MacGuffin because his importance as a character is made very clear and he takes actual actions that impact the plot. He’s not Red Herring because he’s not being used to throw attention off of the actual purpose of the story. There’s absolutely no way he can be Chekov’s Gun or a Deus Ex Machina.
He’s not a plot device. He’s a character that serves a storytelling purpose as a catalyst for conflict, but he’s not a plot device (or, particularly, a MacGufffin) as he’s a fully developed character with a very clear and well-explained importance and who actually does things himself that moves the plot along beyond just existing. All characters serves some kind of storytelling purpose because they’re not real people, they’re storytelling vessels. If Neal is a plot device, than all of the characters on the show are plot devices.
GOD. THAT. I am so sick of reading that Neal is/was a plot device. People who call him that simply don’t know what a plot device *is*
ETA: Also….THIS from Kiki (bless her)
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"EXCUSE ME WHILE I POST THIS ENTIRE THING BECAUSE IT’S SUPER IMPORTANT OKAY
People really do seem to have this disconnect when it comes to Neal and Bae. Like they refuse to recognize that they’re the same character. I have yet to see anyone explain how Neal was a plot device without displaying an enormous misunderstand of what a plot device actually is. A plot device is something that moves the plot forward, and there are different kinds. A MacGuffin is an object that’s imbued with a certain importance that isn’t explained, where the importance of the object within the story isn’t what the object is or what it can do, but the actions it sets in motion. It doesn’t take any actions to move the plot forward at any point. (For example, the Maltese Falcon) A Red Herring is a device that diverts audience attention away from the big, main things that’s happening, making them think that something else is happening than what is actually happening. They’re basically clues or pieces of information that leads the audience in the wrong direction. (Think of all the whodunnits and police procedural shows where it looks like someone did it for awhile, and then at the end we find out it’s someone else. The Third Man’s structure relies on a red herring. From the beginning we think Harry is dead and that the movie is about solving his murder, but it turns out it’s about something else entirely). Chekov’s Gun is an object that is shown or introduced some place before the end of the story, usually early on, which ends up being used later in the story, usually in a very important way. Oftentimes these objects will be introduced innocuously. A Deus Ex Machina (something that the OUAT writers use to a nauseating degree) is a device used to end a story, which generally comes out of nowhere, that resolves all problems and loose threads. (For example, the out-of-nowhere potion that ended the Lacey arc) Those are the big ones that refer to specific objects or people. There are of course other ones which apply to specific moments within the plot (like the Plot Twist, Reversal, Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, Framing Device, Cliffhanger, Story Within a Story, and so on), none of which would normally apply to a single character or object. I fail to see how Neal is any of the things listed above. He’s not a MacGuffin because his importance as a character is made very clear and he takes actual actions that impact the plot. He’s not Red Herring because he’s not being used to throw attention off of the actual purpose of the story. There’s absolutely no way he can be Chekov’s Gun or a Deus Ex Machina. He’s not a plot device. He’s a character that serves a storytelling purpose as a catalyst for conflict, but he’s not a plot device (or, particularly, a MacGufffin) as he’s a fully developed character with a very clear and well-explained importance and who actually does things himself that moves the plot along beyond just existing. All characters serves some kind of storytelling purpose because they’re not real people, they’re storytelling vessels. If Neal is a plot device, than all of the characters on the show are plot devices.
X GOD. THAT. I am so sick of reading that Neal is/was a plot device. People who call him that simply don’t know what a plot device *is* ETA: Also….THIS from Kiki (bless her)
I totally agree with this. I am so tired of people degrading Neal/Baelfire into a plot device when he has a more important role in the story than Hook right now since it feels like Hook is only just a love interest for Emma and nothing else. I mean seriously I see so many people saying that he is a plot device and his story is finished that in their eyes it is “good” that his story ended like that. Seriously that isn’t even a good excuse that he should have die and stay dead. Even if his story is finished that doesn’t mean he should had been killed off and stay killed off. I think the problem is that some people are too blinded by their wish for Emma to be with Hook that they are willing to objectify Neal/Baelfire in order to justify their belief that Neal/Baelfire should stay dead so Emma would end up with Hook. I mean whenever I hear about Neal/Baelfire being called a plot device, Hook would usually show up in the conversation somehow.
We will meet again, in another life...
I think the problem is that some people are too blinded by their wish for Emma to be with Hook that they are willing to objectify Neal/Baelfire in order to justify their belief that Neal/Baelfire should stay dead so Emma would end up with Hook.
Yep. And if a character has to remain dead in the story for another couple to get together, then that tells you something in and of itself. Doesn’t it? I mean we had Ariel taking Hook to task and saying, “You killed a man for a ship? Who does that?” I mean, if you take the word ship to be shorthand for relationship, it’s not hard to gather the writers were being a bit tongue and cheek with that one. They killed off Neal in order for the relationship between Emma and Hook to unfold. Why? Because Neal was always written as being Emma’s true love, as confirmed by the swan pendant crossing realms. As JMo tweeted recently, Emma would’ve chosen Neal if he hadn’t died, because in her words, “swans mate for life.” Hook is the one who remains by default, not by choice. Emma is so desperate not to be like the black widow, to know she’s not somehow cursed to kill all the men she’s ever cared about, that she clings to Hook, because he’s the last one standing. He’s not her first choice though.
"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
Who had more story tell? Who was really more important?
Neal:
The Original True Love to Emma Swan.
The Biological father of Henry Mills.
The Son of Rumpelstilskin.
A Hero who sacrificed himself to ensure the resurrection of his father, as well as the return of Emma Swan and their son, even with the knowledge that he may not live to see it.
Hook:
The one handed lover who has a school boy crush on Emma.
I really want to ask Oncers…Who was the plot device again?
"If you go as far as you can see...you will then see enough to go even further." - Finn Balor
Yep. And if a character has to remain dead in the story for another couple to get together, then that tells you something in and of itself. Doesn’t it? I mean we had Ariel taking Hook to task and saying, “You killed a man for a ship? Who does that?” I mean, if you take the word ship to be shorthand for relationship, it’s not hard to gather the writers were being a bit tongue and cheek with that one. They killed off Neal in order for the relationship between Emma and Hook to unfold. Why? Because Neal was always written as being Emma’s true love, as confirmed by the swan pendant crossing realms. As JMo tweeted recently, Emma would’ve chosen Neal if he hadn’t died, because in her words, “swans mate for life.” Hook is the one who remains by default, not by choice. Emma is so desperate not to be like the black widow, to know she’s not somehow cursed to kill all the men she’s ever cared about, that she clings to Hook, because he’s the last one standing. He’s not her first choice though.
Actually people tend to forget that JMO actually said last year in cannes that Neal only 2 options were, to get emma and in case of them not staying together, he had to die so that emma could move on to someone else, bc according to her, no way would emma move on to other relation if Neal was there close to her, and then of course she saw what she said and tried to redeem herself and was even worst bc she said that Neal needed to die to pay for his sins, like he was some sort of villain.
"I offended you with my opinion? Ha, you should hear the ones I keep to myself".
Yep. And if a character has to remain dead in the story for another couple to get together, then that tells you something in and of itself. Doesn’t it? I
See, this is what I’m curious about. I mean sure, Hook became a popular character etc etc, but the decision to pair him off with Emma feels like, by far, the least interesting route the show could have gone. And this made me wonder — was this a ratings-based decision? Apart from Hook’s popularity in and of himself, the way the relationship is being fleshed out is extremely simplistic and deeply unoriginal, up until now. Also, I can’t help but notice that, at least based on my brief and horrified encounter with Tumblr’s OUAT, CSers tend towards the late teen, early twenties age bracket (no offense to anyone here, of course!) It makes me wonder whether A&E and whoever works on the show promotion team decided that they need to actively tap into the YA audience of things like Twilight or The Mortal Instruments franchise ?
Also, there are ways to tell that particular romance that subvert the trope — the relationship between Buffy and Spike comes to mind, in that it starts with almost the same bad boy/good girl premise (similarly, the girl is grieving for her lost love), but then does something very different from the expected stereotype. It’s kind of a heartbreaking dysfunctional relationship, but you still root and grieve for the respective characters. By contrast, CS for all its shiny shininess just leaves me completely unfazed — in no small part because, for all his swagger, Hook somehow manages to be astoundingly humorless and un-self-reflexive.
And this made me wonder — was this a ratings-based decision? Apart from Hook’s popularity in and of himself, the way the relationship is being fleshed out is extremely simplistic and deeply unoriginal, up until now
Ratings coupled with the media frenzy around CS and Hook in particular.
I mean, goodness. Does anyone else remember the CRAZY media hype for 305 “Good Form”? Even before 304 aired (an episode all about Rumple and Neal and Pan) we had spoilers about the kiss, we have a picture, we had a gif set and then finally the sneak peek and gave away the whole shebang. Articles every which way about the CS kiss and from Colin about CS in general. When I finally got around to condensing the 305 spoilers into the 305 section, I remember it taking forever because there was so much *stuff*
Or remember back in S2 when we learned that ABC was pushing for more Hook in scenes? They keep suggesting, “put Hook here. Can you put Hook here? We’d like Hook here.”
Also, there are ways to tell that particular romance that subvert the trope — the relationship between Buffy and Spike comes to mind, in that it starts with almost the same bad boy/good girl premise (similarly, the girl is grieving for her lost love), but then does something very different from the expected stereotype. It’s kind of a heartbreaking dysfunctional relationship, but you still root and grieve for the respective characters. By contrast, CS for all its shiny shininess just leaves me completely unfazed — in no small part because, for all his swagger, Hook somehow manages to be astoundingly humorless and un-self-reflexive.
Bingo. I like Spuffy; I actually shipped them while watching BtVS–even though now, grown up, I recognize that it wasn’t as romantic as my younger self thought. But it had consequences! Spike did horrible things (and Buffy did some pretty horrible things right back) and they both had to pay for it. It wasn’t rug swept. It was dealt with and it wasn’t treated like the was the purest form of love in the history of ever! It was dark and twisted and the writers made sure you knew that. Even after it began to go stand in the sun for a bit in the end (because I need to use a vampire metaphor apparently) it still wasn’t sold as a honest to heaven love story.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"And this made me wonder — was this a ratings-based decision? Apart from Hook’s popularity in and of himself, the way the relationship is being fleshed out is extremely simplistic and deeply unoriginal, up until now
Ratings coupled with the media frenzy around CS and Hook in particular.
I mean, goodness. Does anyone else remember the CRAZY media hype for 305 “Good Form”? Even before 304 aired (an episode all about Rumple and Neal and Pan) we had spoilers about the kiss, we have a picture, we had a gif set and then finally the sneak peek and gave away the whole shebang. Articles every which way about the CS kiss and from Colin about CS in general. When I finally got around to condensing the 305 spoilers into the 305 section, I remember it taking forever because there was so much *stuff*
Or remember back in S2 when we learned that ABC was pushing for more Hook in scenes? They keep suggesting, “put Hook here. Can you put Hook here? We’d like Hook here.”
Also, there are ways to tell that particular romance that subvert the trope — the relationship between Buffy and Spike comes to mind, in that it starts with almost the same bad boy/good girl premise (similarly, the girl is grieving for her lost love), but then does something very different from the expected stereotype. It’s kind of a heartbreaking dysfunctional relationship, but you still root and grieve for the respective characters. By contrast, CS for all its shiny shininess just leaves me completely unfazed — in no small part because, for all his swagger, Hook somehow manages to be astoundingly humorless and un-self-reflexive.
Bingo. I like Spuffy; I actually shipped them while watching BtVS–even though now, grown up, I recognize that it wasn’t as romantic as my younger self thought. But it had consequences! Spike did horrible things (and Buffy did some pretty horrible things right back) and they both had to pay for it. It wasn’t rug swept. It was dealt with and it wasn’t treated like the was the purest form of love in the history of ever! It was dark and twisted and the writers made sure you knew that. Even after it began to go stand in the sun for a bit in the end (because I need to use a vampire metaphor apparently) it still wasn’t sold as a honest to heaven love story.
When Buffy finally told Spike she loved him in the last episode, he turned around and said “no you don’t but thanks for saying it”, he recognised that what they had was never the real deal.
Interestingly, Spike was supposed to die in season 2 but he proved so popular with the audience and fans that they kept him alive. However this presented a problem for the writers as they couldn’t keep Spike a villain trying to kill Buffy because why wouldn’t Buffy stake him hence why Spike got the chip in his head to prevent him being evil and essentially putting him on the side of good to fight alongside the Scooby gang.
It seems like something similar happened with Hook, he proved popular so they didn’t want to get rid of him, but they couldn’t keep him a villain so they made him turn good. Ironically, the Neverland arc should’ve been the ideal place to push Hook front and centre and let him shine but for some reason they didn’t. The thing is though, Hook became irrelevant storywise after Neverland and is role now is literally Emma’s love interest. The difference between Buffy and Once though is that Buffy had Spike earn his acceptance into the group whereas Once just handed it to Hook on the platter.
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of Felix
The topic ‘Emma + Baelfire = Swanfire’ is closed to new replies.