- This topic has 341 replies, 49 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Right, but the DO outfit with the weird hair and glitter wasn’t her either. I think she was trying to let him know Emma (without the DO influence) was still there. That she could be the DO, but still be the Emma he knew.
Right the version of Emma he knew and liked, but not the version of Emma that is her most authentic self. Why didn’t Emma simply choose to change into her own more traditional clothes (e.g. a leather jacket, jeans and boots)? Because she was trying to appeal more to the version that Hook liked. That is what I mean about this version of Emma not being in keeping with the earlier versions of Emma that the show tried to sell us on (and did successfully for me) in S1-S3.
[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
Right the version of Emma he knew and liked, but not the version of Emma that is her most authentic self. Why didn’t Emma simply choose to change into her own more traditional clthes (e.g. a leather jacket, jeans and boots)? Because she was trying to appeal more to the version of heself that Hook liked. That is what I mean about this version of Emma not being in keeping with the earlier versions of Emma that the showed tried to sell us on (and did successfully for me) in S1-S3.
Fair enough. Let’s seer what happens now that she isn’t the dark one. Like she already is back in her leather jacket. If she continue this behavior, then I will let you have this one haha.
I’m certainly hoping to see more of Emma in her red leather jacket taking more of a central role again in S5b.
"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
double post
"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
But it was one dress, one time.
Well that is the problem, you know what Colin said about the dress thing, in a interview, that Emma needed Hook to appear in her life so that she could become finally a real Woman by using a feminin dress, which JMo agreed, this is not the dress, this is what the show tries to show, not to mention the bad pr from cast saying stupid things like that, especially when she wear dresses with Neal, in S1 premiere and with Walsh, but those dresses were who was Emma, the real Emma, not who she wants to be to Hook, she has to be herself, if hook doesnt like who she is then he doesnt love her, like he also doesnt have to change for Emma, he has to change for himself even if emma doesnt end with him( which will not happen bc of reasons).
"I offended you with my opinion? Ha, you should hear the ones I keep to myself".
you know what Colin said about the dress thing, in a interview, that Emma needed Hook to appear in her life so that she could become finally a real Woman by using a feminin dress
*shakes head in utter consternation* I can’t even.
You know, this is a bit out of let field, but it occurs to me that a lot of the conversations we’re having lately — not just in this thread, but across the more “lively” parts of this forum, all really boil down to gender. I mean, yes, we talk about it through characters, PR, actors and writers’ interviews, plot etc, but there’s this underlying theme that seems incredibly stable across all these discussions.
So I guess the logical question is whether OUAT is actually a show about representations of gender? Like, at its core? Because that’s what we’re always coming back to. And this is also the fracture along which the “culture wars” in the fandom seem to be happening. I mean, we tend to talk about them as “ship wars,” but aren’t they also, to some extent, fundamental disagreements about gender roles, about what a desirable relationship looks like, about what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable behavior, about what constitutes “family” etc (I’m thinking about @WickerRegal’s recent comment about Regina/adoption/motherhood in another thread)?
And I don’t think I’m focusing on this because I’m some sort of pitchfork wielding, dyed-in-the-wool feminist who sees gender inequality pouncing at me from every dark alley. 😉 I watch plenty of sci-fi and fantasy shows that are clearly about something else (say, colonialism, or ecological devastation), and where I’m frankly not at all fussed about their gender politics because other things are capturing my attention. But gender and class seem to keep nagging me with OUAT, such that I just can’t put it down. :-/
So here’s my question, and maybe it should be booted into its own thread, I don’t know: but is OUAT written in such a way as to be purposefully be polarizing in its representations of gender? Does it have an identifiable gender politics?
So here’s my question, and maybe it should be booted into its own thread, I don’t know: but is OUAT written in such a way as to be purposefully be polarizing in its representations of gender? Does it have an identifiable gender politics?
Yes, this seems like a topic worthy of its own thread, since it would require us to analyze not just Emma, but really most of the primary and even secondary characters. A quick search didn’t really reveal a thread already dedicated to this topic, so it seems like a good idea. Wanna start 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
Yes, this seems like a topic worthy of its own thread, since it would require us to analyze not just Emma, but really most of the primary and even secondary characters. A quick search didn’t really reveal a thread already dedicated to this topic, so it seems like a good idea. Wanna start one?
Sure! I won’t get to it until the evening though (work work work), especially to actually formulate a coherent topic prompt — but if someone has a longer lunch break or is in a timezone where evening comes earlier, I’ll definitely pitch in at the end of the day. 🙂
Wait a second? When did we start doing the Character Analysis Conversations again? And since I’ve missed the Emma one…whose next?
"If you go as far as you can see...you will then see enough to go even further." - Finn Balor
I feel like we are overthinking this a bit. If I was in a relationship, and my gf liked me better with a beard, I would likely do it for her. In fact, my friend has done this recently. I think she just wants to make Hook happy and she knows what he likes. It was her reaching out to him and letting him know she cares what he thinks. I don’t think she’s going to change everything all of a sudden. Just this one time, she dressed up a bit.
I don’t think I’m over analyzing things. I’m not saying it’s always wrong to do nice things for the person you’re in a relationship with, but I don’t think think a person should change so much that she starts to lose her original identity either. It’s not the dress that is the problem (though it is ugly). The pink dress is merely an external representation of Emma’s core character changing since she’s been in a relationship with Hook. Yet, changing excessively for a person never works. Emma’s dress shows how being in a relationship with Hook has caused her to become much more traditional, softer, demure (i.e. “feminine”)–which wouldn’t be as big an issue if she’d actually been depicted that way all along. The problem is, however, that is just not how Emma was depicted for the first 3 seasons. It’s not progressive; it’s regressive. See the images below:
Emma Swan season 2 promotional photos Emma Swan was never depicted as a girly girl in the first first two seasons. In fact, she was a modern-day princess who was always depicted as being more of a tomboy who was more comfortable wearing leather jackets and jeans than high-heeled shoes and a dress. In fact, her red leather jacket is her savior power symbol. The writers used to understand this about her, and she was marketed this way: she always took more after her father than her mother, as depicted in the S2 photos of Emma in which she’s wearing her father’s armor, wielding her father’s sword while ignoring her mother’s frilly dresses. The few times we’ve really seen her dress up (excluding her trips to the Enchanted Forest/Camelot), she was wearing short, edgy, modern dresses, which seems more in keeping with her more masculine sensibiliities. But Emma in a pale pink satin prom dress from the 1950s just makes her look like Greece’s Sandra Dee — whom Emma Swan certainly is not. I find Emma changing for Hook to be very ironic. Emma told Henry in 5×5 that “changing so someone likes you never works.” She then said she liked Henry’s dad because he was always himself. But then Emma proceeded to not be herself with Hook on the boat when she changed her clothes to get him to like her again. I don’t think that Emma is being true to herself when she’s with Hook, which is what I think that pink dress really symbolizes and why Emma and Hook just don’t work together, on so so many levels.It just truly goes to show how much the writers have reversed the Emma Swan we knew….
Since it seems I’ve missed the Emma Swan analysis…I’ll catch the next one. But I’m gonna leave this here as tribute to the character.
"If you go as far as you can see...you will then see enough to go even further." - Finn Balor
The topic ‘Emma Swan Character Analysis’ is closed to new replies.