- This topic has 25,813 replies, 124 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Lily’s Sparks’ review is up!
[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
Oh, and where was Hook revived? The stinkin’ FLOWER FIELD! You know, the flowers of false love!? Here’s what I would have done: save the reveal for Hook’s survival reason for the end of “The Bear King” — the only reason he’s in SB is the Ale. As in, he’s a ghost. Just, no. Also, since when can the Dark One not be killed? Um, Season 2, anyone?
Well, you know what they say: being the Dark One reveals your true nature.
Scripts are up, so I’m just going to post this little exchange here:
Hook: But all that changed when I met you.
Emma: What are they now?
Hook: A reminder. That all sins can be forgiven when someone loves you.I had expected him to say something like “because they are a reminder of what I could revert back to” or something like that. But no… So not only did he keep trophies, but even after he became a “good guy” he hung on to them because he’s essentially saying that if Emma (the, *cough cough* savior) loves him, he’s absolved of all his past evil deeds. Right, I’m sure the families of the people he randomly killed would feel all warm and fuzzy at the thought of Emma and Hook buying a house in suburbia.
Anyway, this is probably the most perverse reinterpretation of the concept of grace I have heard in a long time. Even if we ignore the overt Judeo-Christian overtones of this exchange, it makes for offensive writing even from a secular, generally ‘humanist’ perspective. It’s essentially suggesting that the only thing that’s keeping him from reverting back to the “dark side” is that he managed to “snag” Emma, and it’s boosting his sense of self-worth. I just can’t with this character.
It’s essentially suggesting that the only thing that’s keeping him from reverting back to the “dark side” is that he managed to “snag” Emma, and it’s boosting his sense of self-worth. I just can’t with this character.
I see it as emotional blackmail. So long as Emma stays with him he’ll be good. But if she leaves, he’ll go back to being “dark” and it’ll be all her fault because she left him. It’s unhealthy and seriously raises questions on what the writers think constitutes love. Even OQ is more morally sound than CS and that’s saying something.
Hook’s character has actually gotten worse this season to the point where Zelena comes across as more likeable. Freaking Zelena, whose cause more pain and anguish to the main characters than some of the other big bads combined, is more likeable than Hook.
Whereas Rumple and Regina actually had to go through a journey of redemption so that any slip ups back to the dark side are tragic, Hook’s seems more like revealing his true colours than any great tragedy. We’ve seen both Emma and Rumple as DARK ONES especially in the EF still have the capacity to love and care for their loved ones even if their methods of protecting said loved ones are extreme. The emotions are still there. Within minutes of discovering he’s a dark one, Hook is planning revenge against Emma, his supposed “true love”. What the Hell?
Are the writers actually being clever and doing CS because ABC told them to but showing it for how unhealthy it is, or do they actually believe that CS is this all singing all dancing undying love? Because what they’re telling us and what they’re showing us are two totally different things.
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of FelixBecause what they’re telling us and what they’re showing us are two totally different things.
The motto of OUAT since S3B.
Passing thoughts :
1) The exchange between Hook and Emma is absolutely emotional blackmail. But the writers don’t *get* that. They see it as romantic because you’ll find exchanges like that all over TV-media. It’s part of living inside Rape Culture without actually knowing/understanding it. Emma’s basically reduced to a magical mcguffin for Hook’s manpain.
2) In the same vein, the writers are not being clever. They are writing how other “romantic” leads between bad boy/good girl go. They are just very bad at it.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Hey, let’s play a game. Let’s see how many quotes by Captain Guyliner we can put on pictures of Jason Isaac’s Hook before people notice!
I’d do one now, but I don’t have time, at the moment.
Google Image Search: Jason Isaacs Captain Hook
I’m pretty much expecting something like this to happen soon. *spoilers*
Despite everything being all about Hook this half season, I’m still laughing that Rumple is now the “purest hero who ever lived” and Hook is now another dark one.
"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
It’s unhealthy and seriously raises questions on what the writers think constitutes love. Even OQ is more morally sound than CS and that’s saying something.
Yes, OQ — despite all the soap suds — is actually doing pretty well this season. Sure, they’re not infallible, but all in all they seem to have a pretty good dynamic going. But OQ is also not being shoved down our throats as the Romance to End All Romances. It’s just, you know, two people trying to make it work in a difficult situation. Which, despite the over the top ridiculousness of the Zelena baby mama thing, is actually sort of relatable and sweet.
Are the writers actually being clever and doing CS because ABC told them to but showing it for how unhealthy it is, or do they actually believe that CS is this all singing all dancing undying love?
I know that’s Slurpeez ‘s theory as well, right? I’ve been going back and forth, but I think the writers are just not clever – or, rather, not careful – enough to pull off that sort of doublespeak. Hook is just your standard, boiler plate rogue “redeemed by the love of a righteous woman”. As RG said, he’s written just as the rest of his TV trope compadres are written, with no efforts to subvert or question the stereotype. The problem is that OUAT’s audience is, by and large, pretty smart. So we’re all sitting here trying to make sense out of something that makes none.
Alternatively, maybe they had the Dark!Swan season more planned out than we think, and that originally Neal was meant to be in Hook’s shoes — as others have suggested on this thread. And then A&E out-clevered themselves and killed off Neal, which probably threw the rest of the writing team for a bit of a loop. I don’t know how this works in the TV industry, but I know from personal experience that, in a pinch, folks who write for a living recycle old text — whether for the ideas, for the language, for the plot — whatever. Because crafting new stuff takes time, intellectual effort, and a lot of wordsmithing, which you can’t always pull off. So we are seeing snippets of a much more well thought-out plot line interspersed with bizarre shortcuts and “shake and bake” character development, like Hook’s Suddenly, Dark One.
The topic ‘Emma + Baelfire = Swanfire’ is closed to new replies.