- This topic has 25,813 replies, 124 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
So, for example, is there a sense that a character might be popular for a short period, but “fade” fast (for whatever reason) whereas others might have most long-standing appeal?
Yeah that’s a good question. Because a character like Regina has been super popular since the beginning and really only gains in popularity as time goes on. But Hook has soured to the point where only one set of shippers like him/defend him and as time goes on he only becomes more polarizing. I’m also curious how they come up with these focus groups and what sorts of questions they ask.
I do wonder why Regina is more popular than Hook. I never ‘shipped’ SQ for the same reasons I never ‘shipped’ CS: too quasi-incestuous and too much direct and indirect harm. Both Hook and Regina have tried to kill Emma and her family. I get that Regina has arguably come further in her accepting responsibility for her past villainy than has Hook (though he did acknowledge he was the problem just last episode). As Regina also said in 5×15, she and Hook are a lot alike. Both spent decades seeking revenge.
[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
I think a lot of it has to do with Lana Parilla and her powerhouse performance. Same with Bobby/Rumple. They both brought a pathos to their performance when their backstory was detailed (like Stable Boy and A Desperate Soul). They both are a more unique look at villainy and complex moral grey characters.
Hook has a sad story but it’s nowhere near as compelling as Rumple or Regina’s. And Colin is a fine actor but he doesn’t elicit the same empathetic reactions that Bobby and Lana do (no discredit to Colin. He does well with what he’s given, but you can tell he relishes playing the sociopath more than the love struck woobie pirate).
ETA: and that’s why I questioned the sort of focus groups they have. Are they actually getting a fair representation, or are they pulling from groups who will tell them what they believe to be true (that Hook is super popular and beloved)? At this stage I just find it so hard to believe that ABC can be THIS tone deaf to the outcry against Hook unless they are delibertly ignoring it through carefully selected focus groups to feed into their bias.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"In season 2 hook was just a side 2 dimentional comic relief character, in season 3 he became so boring and got way too much boring scrèen time, RATINGS WENT DOWN. it’s a direct result of hook becoming “important” in a boring way.
The thing with Hook is, there was potential to make the character evolve in a natural way, and that was thrown aside in order to promote CS.
In Season 2, Hook’s primary objective was revenge on Rumple for Milah’s death. Whilst it could be argued that such a quest is normally given to a heroic character, how many movies do we have where the hero’s conflict with a bad guy is to avenge the death of a loved one, the problem with Hook is that his introductory episode “the crocodile” portrayed him as anything but heroic. Hook was introduced as a bully who would pick on those weaker than him because he could. His characterisation throughout season 2 was someone who’s loyalty could be bought so long as it brought him closer to his goal of killing Rumple,.
Since Rumple was not yet deemed a villain in season 2, Hook’s conflict with him could have been an interesting dilemma for the audience because of the whole avenging a dead loved one. There would’ve been no good or bad. HOWEVER, Hook was already cast in a negative role because of his bullying actions in the crocodile and this was only compounded by Hook’s actions towards Belle. Belle wasn’t even born when the original conflict between Rumple and Hook happened, yet Hook is punishing her for simply being close to Rumple. For those of us who weren’t distracted by Hook’s pretty face and think it’s actually not okay threaten and hurt an innocent woman just because you have an issue with her boyfriend, Hook was now firmly in the role of villain.
IMO, towards the end of season 2 is where problems began to arise with the show’s portrayal of Hook. Since Tallahassee when Emma and Hook climbed the beanstalk, CS was being shipped. Admittedly, there was chemistry between Emma and Hook in that episode so you can see why people would ship it but I think it was a more Unresolved Sexual tension chemistry rather than a “oh my god they’re true loves” chemistry and CS would’ve worked better as UST. Anyway back to the point, because the CS ship was gaining momentum and the Neverland arc was coming up, suddenly Hook needed to be in the “hero” group hence the sudden change of heart over the magic bean at the end of season 2.
Season 3 should’ve been Hook’s time to shine. It was an interesting twist on the Pan/Hook dynamic where Pan was the bad guy. However, instead of having Hook step up and prove that he wasn’t such a bad guy at all, the show reduced him to harassing Emma and kickstarting the CSF love triangle whilst at the same time vilifying Nealfire (having him use Roland as bait) and ignoring the Baelfire backstory that we should’ve had got and arguably was set up at the end of season 2. I was constantly back and forth on Hook throughout 3A despite his actions in season 2 but the episode that really put him into dislike territory for me was Dark Hollow where he said to Emma “WHEN I win your heart, and I WILL win it”. Hook is telling Emma that he will get her in the end despite the fact she is repeatedly telling him no. Instead of backing off, Hook is continuing to harass and pursue her. That line would’ve been less creepy with the word “if” not “when”. Also the fact he demands a kiss as a reward.
So 3A was the show’s way to make Hook more palatable as a potential romantic interest for Emma (IMO they failed) and we head into 3B where Hook shows up to get Emma back to Storybrooke to save everyone. This is where the show really started to try and force CS. Again, they had Hook pursuing Emma despite her telling him no but they had the chance to show Hook had changed in the missing year and have him genuinely apologise to Belle for his actions towards her in season 2 and show some remorse and they didn’t. Instead they had Hook give a mock apology and during the missing year, he gave the rest of the characters a big “screw you” because if Emma wasn’t around to see him act “heroic” he wasn’t going to even bother.
4A is where the problems with Hook and CS really get worse. Having made CS official in the 3B finale, the show now begins whitewashing Hook’s actions and villainising Rumple in order to make Hook look better. Hook knows Rumple has the real dagger but instead of telling Belle, he tries to blackmail Rumple for his own gain. When this blows up in Hook’s face, Hook plays the innocent despite the fact that Hook started it. There was no reason for Hook to antagonise Rumple, they’d laid their feud to rest even if neither side had forgiven the other, yet Hook emerges from the situation smelling of roses. I also maintain the fact that Hook could’ve done a lot more to make things difficult when Rumple had his heart. Rumple made no secret that he intended to kill Hook when the time was right yet he couldn’t kill Hook before that time so why didn’t Hook do more? Ironically, the only time Hook did try and do something was when he was actively being heart controlled. Thing is though, if Hook can fight when he’d being actively controlled, why didn’t he try and do more when he wasn’t? He still had free will.
4B I don’t remember much of but Hook was still an insufferable pain in the arse. His only small “yay Hook” moment was when he told Belle that despite everything Rumple did truly love her. Hook still feels the need to antagonise Rumple every now and then which continues through to season 5 because evidently the writers don’t know what to do with Hook beyond CS and revenge on Rumple even though both goals contradict the other. If Hook is still gung-ho about avenging Milah (which is likely to kick off again after what Rumple was forced to do to Milah) then he’s not really moved on in which case how can CS thrive when Hook is still hung up on his ex. If Hook has moved on to make CS work, then why is he still taking pot shots at Rumple.
5A, Hook is vile as the dark one. Going for personal attacks on Emma by calling her an orphan and saying he would’ve given Milah back “soiled”. We’ve seen Emma and Rumple as the DO and they were nowhere near like Hook was yet CS is still presented as this all singing all dancing romance.
5B it looked like Hook was being given some self-awareness of his actions but then that was ignored and whitewashed yet again.
Other characters are suffering all to make Hook work in the role the show wants him. Rumple is villainised to make Hook look good whilst Emma’s characterisation is now Hook’s cheerleader. If season 1 Emma could see season 5 Emma, she’d have this reaction:
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of FelixI think a lot of it has to do with Lana Parilla and her powerhouse performance. Same with Bobby/Rumple. They both brought a pathos to their performance when their backstory was detailed (like Stable Boy and A Desperate Soul). They both are a more unique look at villainy and complex moral grey characters.
Hook has a sad story but it’s nowhere near as compelling as Rumple or Regina’s. And Colin is a fine actor but he doesn’t elicit the same empathetic reactions that Bobby and Lana do (no discredit to Colin. He does well with what he’s given, but you can tell he relishes playing the sociopath more than the love struck woobie pirate).
ETA: and that’s why I questioned the sort of focus groups they have. Are they actually getting a fair representation, or are they pulling from groups who will tell them what they believe to be true (that Hook is super popular and beloved)? At this stage I just find it so hard to believe that ABC can be THIS tone deaf to the outcry against Hook unless they are delibertly ignoring it through carefully selected focus groups to feed into their bias.
I agree. Hook is the very definition of a creator’s pet.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CreatorsPet
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of Felix<script async=”” src=”https://secure.assets.tumblr.com/post.js”></script>
I was going to share this exact post.
But here’s some other stuff:
Ishtarelisheba: Rumpel and Nealfire.
Forgotten Characters of OUaT and CurvyCurlyGirly: ALL of this! Long post — may have language.
Mr. Gold’s Dearie, Stand By Your Mantis, Nothing Ever Lost, and The Star Thing: Colin VS Hook
Referenced video:
The following are from Once Upon a PsychBlog. Its description:
Graduate Psychologist, Qualified Psychotherapist & OUAT fangirl.
Psychological aspects of characters and their ships. These are my educated views & I do not intend to impose them onto others. Rules for a debate: Don’t raise your voice, raise your argument!Language warning for the text, but not for video, which is the main part.
A response to the above (Marty, is that you?).
A two-part thing, plus a video:
Part 1
Part 2
“I’ve got 99 Problems… and Captain ‘Hook’ Killian Jones is all of them! Why Hook is NOT reformed character. And why CS is toxic – The red flags” Long post — may have language.
Thought all the links were quite interesting — the psych blog also offers a really clear-headed explanation of rape culture.
Hook has a sad story but it’s nowhere near as compelling as Rumple or Regina’s. And Colin is a fine actor but he doesn’t elicit the same empathetic reactions that Bobby and Lana do (no discredit to Colin. He does well with what he’s given, but you can tell he relishes playing the sociopath more than the love struck woobie pirate).
All THIS! I think so a lot of it has to do with actor talent and the fact that both Bobby and Lana are, in my opinion, in literally a different league than most of the other members of the cast. Everyone else does a good job, don’t get me wrong — but those two just have a gravitas and oomph that makes everyone else pale in comparison.
But I think the other factor in this is audience resistance combined with the writers really digging in their heels and stubbornly cramming CS down everyone’s throat. I mean, die-hard CSers aside, I think most of contemporary TV audiences of a show like OUAT can spot a Marty Stu when they see one.
posting this here :
"I offended you with my opinion? Ha, you should hear the ones I keep to myself".
The topic ‘Emma + Baelfire = Swanfire’ is closed to new replies.