- This topic has 25,813 replies, 124 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I actually agree with you — Rumple’s search for power has been consistently presented as a symptom of his villainy. I just want to point out that on OUAT characters who consciously seek power (presumably beyond their station) tend to be cast as evil. This isn’t just Rumple — this is also Cora, Zelena, Regina, Isaac, Nimue etc By contrast, characters who accidentally fall into or are born into power (Emma, Snow, Charming, Merlin) are not considered morally suspect. This is a classic fairytale trope, but one that OUAT reproduces non-reflexively. The lack of reflexivity occasionally backfires when OUAT’s medieval universe encounters modern day sensibilities. So the idea that a desire for upward mobility always = overreaching and a sign of evil is kind of problematic
Upward mobility? You are equating Rumpel wanting to become the most evil being of his time to upward mobility? Rumpel murders people so they are scared of him. He murders people because they get in his way. He is willing to harm his son and his wife, seriously harm, to keep his power. He now, in full knowledge of what being the evil dark one does to him, still wants the power. I just don’t agree with what you are saying here. I think equating upward mobility to evil can be a problem, i just don’t think that is what is going on on Ouat.
Yes it is certainly appropriate to compare Rumple to upward mobility. In fact, him saving Cora and teaching her magic is in a way *spreading* his ideas about upward mobility.
Claims of “Rumple killing people so they are afraid of him” or because they “get in his way” are debatable. Claims of him causing harm to his son are rediculous and the exact opposite is cannon.
According to Regina, (season 2 talking to Henry) this land is the fairest of them all. This says something big about how unfair the feudal system is in the EF and in other lands
The idea the a peasant can not move up unless he stumbles into something evil is just sad.
Rumple was a peasant, but not JUST a peasant. He was at his lowest point where there was no hope of saving the only human in the world who loved him. This is not just peasantry, this is active oppression. He didn’t care about his own fate, he was scared for his child. A child that he could do NOTHING at all to save. Even if he gets on his knees and kisses the oppressor’s boot he can only get an extra day with his son. Before they take Bae from him and kill the boy.
Its one thing to feel helpless to save oneself, its a WHOLE NOTHER thing to be helpless to save one’s child.So when a peasant is oppressed and made to feel SO helpless, upward mobility is a blessing. So said peasant found a magical solution, and this solution happened to be something that attacks the soul and brings darkness to the host.
The host, however, fought this darkness as much as he could. Not always being successful, but the hat came out of the box not because of Anna’s tears. The tears were just because Rumple never believed in himself that he actually ever turned away from darkness, but he did.
[adrotate group="5"]This sounds spot on to me, and I think you’re right, it has a lot to do with generational access to certain ideas. And while I was being a bit facetious with my comments, I think maybe what I was trying to get is that there’s a step, I think, between being a fan and liking certain forms of entertainment, and being a member of a fandom, and one that is very active in particular ways. We all consume all sorts of media, and we all participate, in one way or another, in fandom(s). While I personally find 50SOG risible, this doesn’t mean that I would find the person who gets a kick out of it risible. What one does in the privacy of their imagination is absolutely their business. In fact I think it’s possible — and probably necessary — to enjoy something while not shying away from critiquing it. I suppose I’m fascinated with this particular aspect of OUAT’s fandom culture because it almost looks like OUAT’s creators produced this Frankenstein’s creature, that, like in the book, they’re now unable to control and are terrified of (and maybe for good reason). And I guess I’m curious about the different social processes that have made this possible. Hearing you folks discuss it, I think a good chunk of the responsibility for this lies on the shoulders of the OUAT crew, and perhaps even ABC, in that it almost looks like they fed it, or at least didn’t set a tone of cordiality and respectfulness, but enabled something really unpleasant to emerge.
I agree. I think that because the Ouat cast and crew have not spoke against the crazy, going so far as to lie and say that CS was planned, when in the past they have said the exact opposite, making mocking remarks at SQ, not speaking against the death threats and just horrible things has caused this. The writers have just lost their way. They seem to think the crazy people on the internet, the most vocal, somehow speak for the average viewer. That is just not so. The very sexist, misogynistic, homophobic view that they have gained because of a few crazy people on the internet now permeates their writing. They actually think that most women are silly girls who want to see someone as foul as Hook with the main protagonist Emma, when that is just not true. I think that the writers of this show need to pull their heads out of the cesspool that is Hollywood and twitter and realize that there are normal people out in the world that want to see well thought out and complicated plots and characters with real depth.
To be a fly on the wall in the writer’s room, or even BTS where the actors and actresses really express their thoughts on OUAT…..would be an absolute dream.
"If you go as far as you can see...you will then see enough to go even further." - Finn Balor
With regards to Jane and showrunning/who’s dictating behind the scenes, she once said (back in 2014)
A showrunner has to have a bit of dictator in them and has to be able to say, “Yeah, I know you don’t think you quite have enough work with it. I know you’re not happy. Deal with it.” You have to be willing to piss people off, willing to make the unpopular decision. I think it’s a job that requires a lot of toughness. I think it requires a willingness to offend because you’ve got to see the people that are standing between you and your vision.
I suspect A and E don’t have the backbone Jane is describing. They caved to popularity, fandom demand (or what is perceived as fandom demand) and what ABC thought was best. Sold their vision and story for shiny, in other words.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"I think Jane talks mostly about Joss. It was known that Joss had to fight with network executives to get what he wanted, I remember specifically Willow and Tara’s relationship. On the other hand, A&E work for a much powerful company, abc/Disney, compared to the company Joss worked for, theWB/20th Century Fox.
"All your questions are pointless"
I think Jane talks mostly about Joss. It was known that Joss had to fight with network executives to get what he wanted, I remember specifically Willow and Tara’s relationship. On the other hand, A&E work for a much powerful company, abc/Disney, compared to the company Joss worked for, theWB/20th Century Fox.
Oh for sure. Joss had a very hard battle, everything from Willow/Tara to just keeping the show alive. But if that’s Jane’s philiosphy I do wonder what she thinks about some of A and E’s decisions; you (or someone?) linked to some tweets that appear to throw some shade at the show, possibly. She’s worked on two very basic broadcast shows: Buffy and OUAT. It would be hard to *not* compare showrunning styles.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"I know that most people seem to think that Jennifer likes Captain Swan, but i don’t think she does. I think she makes fun of it in the same way she used to make fun of Swan Queen. She laughs at it because she thinks it is silly. I do think there is this weird thing though when they are in those large group comic con things, the audience is screaming and squealing when people hug and such nonsense. Then when the actors are in the small table interviews with the reporters and bloggers it is just completely different. It is like when they are in the big comic cons, they are nervous and being silly because the crowd is too, but in the table interviews they are having a serious conversation with like six adults, so they give more serious responses. So it is different. I know most people disagree, but i just don’t think Jennifer likes Captain Swan even a little bit. I think that is one of the reason she is like the show is over at six seasons (because she is out). The thing is she will never say that she hates things about the show just like she doesn’t make fun of the show House in public even though she is very obviously annoyed with whatever went down with that show. It isn’t appropriate for her to make fun of the show in public as much as she might want to.
I’ve always wondered what the repercussions of not complying with the network would mean? I mean, would they cancel the show or would they fire A&E and replace them or….? I mean if there are no serious consequences, I dont see why A&E would stand u and tell the story they want to tell.
"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 MAGICI’ve always wondered what the repercussions of not complying with the network would mean? I mean, would they cancel the show or would they fire A&E and replace them or….? I mean if there are no serious consequences, I dont see why A&E would stand u and tell the story they want to tell.
Networks have fired creators/showrunners and replaced them with someone who will give the network what it wants. Usually this is better ratings or a more coherent story. Look at “Revenge” on ABC. The show runner was dismissed after 2 because of a really mind boggling storyline and a low ratings. A new person was brought in to “fix” the show. It lasted two more years but the damage was done and it was cancelled. The show runner for Sleepy Hollow “stepped down” (kind way of saying fired) at the end of S2 and the show was given to a new guy who was tasked with giving the show a new direction.
So the answer to your question is that, yes, show runners can be fired from their own project by a network if the network think it has a better shot at more money (better key eyeballs = better ratings = more ad money) with someone else who will follow the network’s vision.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"You can’t say that Jane can’t take credit on her good episodes and blame her on the bad ones. Every writer gets outlines from the showrunner for the episode and they need to follow those outlines. While the twists in Skin Deep might not have been Jane’s idea, the dialogues are hers, this episode could have failed with a different writer. Another example I can give is 504 and 507, both showed a rushed relationships of two new characters, but 507 handled the relationship better than 504.
I do agree that Jane is good at dialogue, she just isn’t good at plot and it shows in her episodes, in my opinion. Also there was some weird dialogue in Skin Deep too. I can’t remember what it is though right now, but i definitely remember having conversations about the dialogue in that episode.
The topic ‘Emma + Baelfire = Swanfire’ is closed to new replies.