- This topic has 25,813 replies, 124 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I haven’t seen any of the star wars films *ducks for cover* Yeah, idk where I’ve been, it seems like one of the classics that everyone should have seen by now. O hear Disney is making three more. Seems a bit excessive to me. I think the new one should have capped off the series and left it at that. I think Disney should be focusing on going down the road they started with the Oz movies. It had potential, but i guess there is more of an audience for star wars. And I just wanted to post something :3
I saw Star Wars, haven’t seen the new one yet. It’s ok, a little bit overrated and there much better franchises IMO (Lord of the Rings).
[adrotate group="5"]"All your questions are pointless"
there much better franchises IMO (Lord of the Rings).
I saw LOTR….Didn’t like it 😛 the only one i actually liked was the hobbit. The others were decent, but lord knows i had no idea what was going on in the movie
"I could have the giant duck as my steed!" --Daniel Radcliffe
Keeper Of Tamara's Taser , Jafar's Staff, Kitsis’s Glasses , Ariel’s Tail, Dopey's Hat , Peter Pan’s Shadow, Outfit, & Pied Cloak,Red Queen's Castle, White Rabbit's Power To World Hop, Zelena's BroomStick, & ALL MAGICThe behavior i am expecting from a villain is that they then don’t get to date the main good guy and be called a hero with a snap of the writers fingers.
Fair enough. I suppose if the villains ends up dating the heroine, and she doesn’t even acknowledge some of the sleazy things he said to her, then that probably doesn’t send a good message.
I take it you don’t have much of an inroad with the fandom at large? Or are just now getting your feet wet?
I try to stay away from fandom pages and ship wars etc. for this very reason: because people get all hot and bothered over a line or an action. I stay independent and look at both sides. It just appears like I’m a Hook fan because I’m the only one defending his character a bit here, but that’s only because everyone else is dumping on him. I certainly know his flaws very well.
Rumple is not a good guy. He’s manipulative, and can be cold and cruel. But he also recognizes his own villainy–“I’m the villain. And villains don’t get happy endings” (and then dies to save the town without having first tired to kill them all). That to me is a big difference. It certainly doesn’t make him a saint and if anyone has listened to the podcast this season OR read anything I’ve written, they know that I’m really struggling to still like/defend Rumple like I did in seasons past.
Haha yes I’ve heard your struggle. The struggle is real and for good reason. But as you pointed out, despite the things Rumple did and has done, there was something about how Hook was acting and what he was saying in the one day he was the DO that was just way worse, even if he didn’t kill anyone. However, also worth pointing out, that despite how awful he was and really just letting the darkness take over him with what seemed like zero fight at all, he did make the right decision in the end. It’s something you can certainly compare to Rumple’s sacrifice at the end of 3A.
It’s something you can certainly compare to Rumple’s sacrifice at the end of 3A.
Is not the same, bc Rumple is a true sacrifice, he did died to save everyone and he wasnt not the one that cause the problems in 3A, unlike Hook, that was not a sacrifice, he died to solve the problem that he caused in the 1st place, since was hook that opened the portal to Underworld and brought all dark ones to kill everyone
And if we compare sacrifices, another example was Neal, that died to save a town that after he died them pretended he never existed.
"I offended you with my opinion? Ha, you should hear the ones I keep to myself".
It just appears like I’m a Hook fan because I’m the only one defending his character a bit here, but that’s only because everyone else is dumping on him.
By here u mean on the forum or this thread? If you mean on this thread, that is why this thread exists besides talking about SF and to talk about other things we like to fangirl about, so that we can speak bad about Hook, to vent about our problems with Cs and the show in general, bc outside here we have to keep things neutral or at least try, but that means that hook doesnt need a defender here on the SF thread, there are 2 threads for that, one for Hook and one for Cs, somewhere in the forum, those are the places to defend Hook, the same way everyone knows not to go to Hook and Cs thread to defend Neal, that is not the place or like we all know that outside here and Cs threads we should avoid ship wars, especially bwt Sf and Cs. You are welcome to join all our talks, we have some crazy ones here, you may have fun with them, mostly bc we all know each other years now, so we are sort like a family here, and by here i mean mostly this thread, bc there are people that doesnt post outside this one, we endured many things, for example when 315 aired, we past 100 pages in one day, but then we had more people here, now there is only a few of us, but one thing we have in common here, is that we dont like Hook and Cs and how the show is going, so yeah, u will hear only talking bad about Hook here.
"I offended you with my opinion? Ha, you should hear the ones I keep to myself".
Is not the same, bc Rumple is a true sacrifice, he did died to save everyone and he wasnt not the one that cause the problems in 3A, unlike Hook, that was not a sacrifice, he died to solve the problem that he caused in the 1st place, since was hook that opened the portal to Underworld and brought all dark ones to kill everyone And if we compare sacrifices, another example was Neal, that died to save a town that pretended that after he died pretended he never existed.
I was waiting for someone to object to this. It absolutely is not the most perfect comparison. You’re right, Hook did cause what he eventually fixed, whereas Rumple was just doing it for his family. Although I will say if you buy Hook not really being in control, than you could put the blame on Emma for turning him into the DO.
But really, the comparison was both dark ones sacrificing themselves to save everyone. It was a loose comparison.
At the perspective of it is not alright to teach people how to do something specifically so that they will go out and murder people.
On an abstract level, that’s a can of worms argument, especially if you’re in the US. (Along the lines of “do you give someone a gun/ teach someone to shoot if they might kill… what if that saves someone else’s life?” and so forth). I’m not touching that with a 40 foot pole 😉 I’ll just say that I think that’s a slightly different type of moral slippery slope than some of Rumple’s more blatant misdeeds.
I should amend my tone — I probably came across as more defensive or Rumple than I meant to be. I don’t think Rumple, as he’s written now, is defensible. The intent of my post was more about Rumple’s characterization. I think @Bar Farer nailed what happened to Rumple’s writing. After 3B Rumple is retconned in such a way that what was once “cowardice” became cowardice, no scare quotes.@RG also has something about this in Rumple’s thread, I think. From my perspective, S1-3 Rumple’s character is about the struggle of circumstance of birth vs abstract morality. It was also about toxic masculinity. “Cowardice” in scare quotes because the ideal of EF at the time is to send children to war, and to use the peasants for canon fodder. One could interpret Milah’s story as being about the social penalties of having a husband who does not conform to the standards of “proper” masculinity. Rumple’s story was also about a father who would do anything for his son, morality be damned — and this backfires for him and for Neal terribly. But what was the alternative? He was placed in an absolutely impossible situation. The characterization was thoughtful, but I think A&E were very ambivalent about Rumple from the start, and I suspect that this ambivalence has something to do with subtle classism. (The same way that OUAT is subtly racist). Essentially, one of the “take away points” of Rumple’s development is that if you give the “peasants” some power, they’re likely to misuse it.
After 3B and the reboot, the quotation marks are removed, and the aspects of Rumple’s character that were before in “double speak” (which is to say, we had two lines of interpretation: Rumple’s society views him one way, but we, the audience, are shown a different story) are collapsed into one. Now, those features of Rumple that before were shown to be consequences of him reacting to his circumstances in a particular way are re-inscribed as inherent attributes of his character. I profoundly dislike this re-writing of Rumple because, among other things, it cements what was already present but a bit more subtle in Rumple S1-3: they first show us a story about someone from a very marginalized segment of society struggle against his circumstances, in ways that are often very problematic and have absolutely tragic consequences for others and for him. But 3b+ changes that, takes these same exact points, and says “that’s what people like this are like. Give them power, and they are corrupted to want more power.” It’s like the show starts with saying “People in a position of structural weakness sometimes do terrible things, but lets look at their circumstances. Maybe it’s more complicated.” and then it goes “Nope. They’re just bad people.” But at this point, I’ve written about this class thing so many times on here that I’m sounding like a broken record. :-/ Sorry for the rant!
And on a lighter note, is anyone here watching The Expanse?
Hook did cause what he eventually fixed, whereas Rumple was just doing it for his family. Although I will say if you buy Hook not really being in control, than you could put the blame on Emma for turning him into the DO. But really, the comparison was both dark ones sacrificing themselves to save everyone. It was a loose comparison.
I don’t buy Hook not being in control any more than I do Rumple not being in control. Even an addict can find the willpower to stop abusing a substance. Like others have said, if Rumple or Emma don’t get a pass for bad things they did as dark ones than neither does Hook. I also don’t think that a good deed omits one’s guilt of a bad deed. One may later turn over a new leaf and strive to do good works, but that doesn’t somehow negate the vileness of past wrongs or abuses. Future good deeds don’t undo the pain suffered by the victims of a crime.
"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
The topic ‘Emma + Baelfire = Swanfire’ is closed to new replies.