- This topic has 25,813 replies, 124 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
No he hasn’t! Show me where Hook ever said he was sorry for that line, for what he did, for leaving Emma and Snow in jail to die. He was never made to apologize; it was just “he’s a hero now!” from the writers.
Well hasn’t he apologized for his past actions and said he isn’t that man anymore? I looped everything he did back then under that category. They can’t apologize for every line. I just felt like Hook had to convince her that he was turning over a new leaf and not just trying to get with her. And I thought he had done that. Whether it was believable or not is certainly up for debate. And even so, we can disagree on Hook’s redemption arc or what have you. I don’t think they’ve done the best job myself. But at the time, when he said it, and he was a clear villain, I don’t understand how that can be offensive. That would be like being offended that Cruella manipulated dogs to eat her mother or whatever. Animal cruelty! But she was a horrible person. They do or say horrible things.
[adrotate group="5"]No he hasn’t! Show me where Hook ever said he was sorry for that line, for what he did, for leaving Emma and Snow in jail to die. He was never made to apologize; it was just “he’s a hero now!” from the writers.
Well hasn’t he apologized for his past actions and said he isn’t that man anymore? I looped everything he did back then under that category. They can’t apologize for every line. I just felt like Hook had to convince her that he was turning over a new leaf and not just trying to get with her. And I thought he had done that. Whether it was believable or not is certainly up for debate. And even so, we can disagree on Hook’s redemption arc or what have you. I don’t think they’ve done the best job myself. But at the time, when he said it, and he was a clear villain, I don’t understand how that can be offensive. That would be like being offended that Cruella manipulated dogs to eat her mother or whatever. Animal cruelty! But she was a horrible person. They do or say horrible things.
I don’t remember that he apologized about anything other than attacking Belle, which went like this:
Hook/Regina: I need your help with something.
Belle: why would I help you? You hurt me *angry sad*.
Hook/Regina: well then I guess I’m sorry?
Belle: Fine. What do you need me to do?
And the excuse about being a villain might be used on season 2/flashback, and the excuse about the darkness might be used in 5A, but you can’t excuse the fact he lied in 317 about helping Ariel (which again was forgotten and weren’t addressed), you can’t excuse the fact that instead of doing the right thing and tell Belle about the fake dagger, he decided to blackmail Rumple on her expense and the apprentice he put in the hat (yet again he wasn’t confronted, yet again he admitted but it ment nothing cause no one heard it and everyone blamed Rumple).
"All your questions are pointless"
Well hasn’t he apologized for his past actions and said he isn’t that man anymore? I looped everything he did back then under that category.
Nope not really, at least not without the caveat that he’s only good because of Emma–at any moment, should Emma leave him, he’ll go back to being bad! Never mind that being good isn’t supposed to be solely placed on the soul of another but because you should be good for the sake of goodness. That’s actually emotional manipulation.
But even if he has, there is an adage in TV called “show don’t tell.” Hook can say he’s not the man he was anymore and lament that he once did bad things, but the fact that he still does bad things, is still emotionally abusive, still does super problematic actions to people he claims to love….speaks more than any apology. When he tells Emma that he liked her walls because he got to be the one to knock them down (back to the Predator trope I stated a few pages back, so completely wrong given that *Henry* exists as does S1); when he tells her that he liked that she got her heart broken; when he says that he wants the Emma in the pretty dress back; when he stalks and spies on a woman he claims to love; when he prevents her from leaving a situation with an object that is used quite often as a weapon; when he wants to get her liquored up so that she’ll find him “more irresistible” after a few libations (Predator trope); when he we are led to believe that he let a man die to save his ship; when he wants a kiss as a thank you for saving a life; when his treatment of women consists of sexual harassment, beating them, manipulating them all while we are being told that he is a hero…then it’s an issue.
And as far as apologies, they tend to be of the non-sincere sort. How about his apology to Belle for beating her and shooting her. It was the most insincere apology on the show.
But at the time, when he said it, and he was a clear villain, I don’t understand how that can be offensive. That would be like being offended that Cruella manipulated dogs to eat her mother or whatever. Animal cruelty! But she was a horrible person. They do or say horrible things.
Of course they do. But you can find stuff villains do offensive. I’m offended when people murder, rape, maim, or otherwise injure another person. The fact that “horrible people do horrible” things isn’t justification. They don’t get a pass because “oh, villains.” Especially when it doesn’t get treated as a horrible thing by the writers…it gets treated as romantic.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Hook crossed that line when he beat Belle and sexually harassed every woman on the show. If you supposedly “plan” for the villain to be the main love interest of your main heroine, it’s best that his initial behavior won’t be despicable.
You are completely right. Belle hadn’t even done anything to him and he still went after her to get back at Rumple. Belle was an innocent and Hook still treated her like crap despite his code of “honour”.
My own moral event horizon for Hook is when he pinned Emma to the ground, held a sword to her throat, and told her that when he jabbed her with his “sword,” she’d feel it. That was it for me.
Yeah if that offends you, I don’t think we are going to see eye to eye on this topic. That was his character. There are people like that. Not everyone is sunshine and rainbows. He was a villain then. And at that point, he never tried to force himself on her. They were fighting and he said a stupid line. I took it more as if I ever got the chance to sleep with you, she would feel it. Like come on baby, you’d like it type thing. It didn’t feel like it was, I’m going to force myself upon you, take your clothes off, and you will feel it and like it. Honestly if you were jumping to that way back then, it’s no wonder you don’t care for this character.
That is still sexual intimidation. Whilst Hook and Emma may be in a relationship now, and Emma is considered a “strong” woman, it is still not okay. What if he’d said that line to someone like Belle, or Marian, or Anna? Imagine Belle caught on her back, Hook looming over her say the “When” he “jabs her with his sword, she’ll feel it”. Whether Hook was a villain or not does not make it okay. In fact, the point of having your villains say stuff like that is to make them as unlikeable as possible. Someone actually made some manips of Dustin Hoffman’s Hook saying some of the lines that Once’s Hook has said. There is no way you’d be so okay with lines like that had it been DH’s Hook saying them.
Regina is never brought to bear for her crimes against Graham.
And I’ll just leave it at this, although Regina never received punishment or had to fully admit that what she did to Graham was awful, I think as fans we understood what she was doing was wrong. I don’t think they condoned it in any way.
IMO this was something that the show should’ve dealt with and actually would’ve been quite groundbreaking in a way. We’re so used to rape being depicted as male on female in the media to the point that it’s almost become the stereotypical depiction of rape. However, female on male rape does happen and is actually a growing problem in real life. So to have Regina do that to Graham and yet suffer absolutely no consequences is disconcerting. Regina is a fan favourite so obviously they don’t want her to be labelled a rapist but they needed to handle that situation better than they did. To just close their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears and pretend it didn’t happen is not good.
And the fact that there are people like that doesn’t make it okay. Ever. If a man walked up to you, held you by your wrist, refused to let you go and said “come on baby, you’d like it” how would you react? Would you think, “oh it’s okay. It’s just his character/personality.”
Of course that’s awful. But he was an awful person. I’m not defending his comment. Let me be clear. But he was being portrayed as a villain. So why should I have an issue with that line if we as viewers are supposed to view him as a bad guy. Now, they have tried to redeem, and he has said he is sorry and what not, etc. etc. But at the time, a line like that was from a villain who was trying to get in her pants with rude pirate talk, which is why I didn’t have an issue with it.
You kind of are defending his comment because you are making an excuse for him. “he was being portrayed as a villain” is an excuse. That’s like saying Rumple was well within his rights to rip out Milah’s heart and crush it because “he was being portrayed as a villain”. It was okay for Arthur to control Gwen, making her believe she loved him with magic dust because “he was being portrayed as a villain”, it was okay for Pan to emotionally manipulate Henry because “he was being portrayed as a villain” etc etc.
If you start excusing one characters actions because of reasons then you have to apply the same logic across the board.
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of FelixAll fair points. He obviously does things that are not great. And although I think you are quick to jump to things like emotional manipulation when Hook says things like he’s afraid he’ll revert back to his old self if it wasn’t for her (because I don’t see that as emotional manipulation if he truly is afraid that’s what will happen and if Emma truly has that kind of affect on him), he certainly cannot be defended all the time and I’m not going to try now.
Of course they do. But you can find stuff villains do offensive. I’m offended when people murder, rape, maim, or otherwise injure another person. The fact that “horrible people do horrible” things isn’t justification. They don’t get a pass because “oh, villains.” Especially when it doesn’t get treated as a horrible thing by the writers…it gets treated as romantic.
However this I just don’t understand. If the bad guy is supposed to do bad things, how can you find that offensive. It is logic. They don’t get a pass. We are supposed to hate them, not get offended. Being offended to me, sounds like you are taking it personal. But I don’t get what kind of behavior you are expecting from a villain.
You kind of are defending his comment because you are making an excuse for him. “he was being portrayed as a villain” is an excuse. That’s like saying Rumple was well within his rights to rip out Milah’s heart and crush it because “he was being portrayed as a villain”. It was okay for Arthur to control Gwen, making her believe she loved him with magic dust because “he was being portrayed as a villain”, it was okay for Pan to emotionally manipulate Henry because “he was being portrayed as a villain” etc etc. If you start excusing one characters actions because of reasons then you have to apply the same logic across the board.
Well yes. Should we just have all characters be nice and perfect. You need bad people to tell a story. These people are bad people. Arthur was a bad person. Pan was a bad person. So their actions make sense to me. It would make less sense if they did something good. I’m not going to get offended by something a “bad” character does.
I’m not defending the comment per say, I’m just defending the writers using it for a bad person. It’s not a good thing to say. That is why Charming didn’t say it. A bad person said it. Like come on guys, Arthur controlling Gwen was terrible. But based on his goals and what he wanted to accomplish, I understood why he did it. Not condoning it, but he was a bad guy. Was not surprised he did that. Rumple was a bad man. And Milah left him. It makes sense that he killed her and ripped her heart out. How are you supposed to write villainous characters if they don’t do villainous things? Am I missing something here? We are supposed to go wow what a jerk, I hate him, not wow I am totally personally offended by this fictional villain’s actions. I must be really missing something here.
Unfortunately, rape happens in our culture. It is a horrible horrible thing. In the case with Regina, we were supposed to hate her. So her treatment and manipulation of Graham made us despise her.
Then go ask Adam what was going on with Regina and Graham. Regina is never brought to bear for her crimes against Graham. it’s never brought up, she is never punished for her 28 year long rape.
The mere fact her soul mate was rapped, and got her sister Zelena pregnant…I’m pretty sure we can say that what goes around comes around. Just like when Maleficent cursed an innocent child, hers was stolen away from Snow and Charming, who in turn had Emma was taken from them. Yeah…I’m quite sure karma is the one who pays those back who did wrong.
What Adam and Eddy & the Hook-matized Fans think CaptainSwan looks like…
What CaptainSwan really looks like….
Oh how I wish Emma Swan could have turned into Olivia Pope when Hook was pursuing her…
"If you go as far as you can see...you will then see enough to go even further." - Finn Balor
If the bad guy is supposed to do bad things, how can you find that offensive. It is logic. They don’t get a pass.
But they do get a pass. Regina killed an entire village, nothing happened. Hook got women drunk as a “tactic’ to lure them back to his ship for hanky-panky (as well as all the other stuff already listed by me, Bar and POM), nothing happened. Hook shot Belle, nothing happened. Rumple killed people in his early days as DO, nothing happened (well, actually you can argue that he lost his son because of his actions, so there’s a recompense there.). The villains on this show get a complete pass except for the seasonal arc ones and they usually die because their arc is over.
I think we’re using offended in the wrong sense here. Yes, villains do bad things, but I’m allowed to find those actions reprehensible and horrifying. You’re basically saying that it’s okay that they do these things and get that free pass (which they do get on this show) because “villains.”
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"How are you supposed to write villainous characters if they don’t do villainous things?
Of course villainous people do villainous things in narrative. Voldemort killed Harry’s parents to drive the narrative but that doesn’t negate that it’s murder.
The things Hook does are still villainous things that are getting turned into romantic moments and never brought to bear. You (and the show) are giving them a pass from ever having to face the consequences of those actions. Simply by saying “oh he was a villain then” doesn’t cut it. That doesn’t lessen his actions nor mean that he doesn’t have to pay for them in some regard.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"
The topic ‘Emma + Baelfire = Swanfire’ is closed to new replies.