EW 7/29 – OUAT to Delve into Savior Mythology

[nevermore]

I am less than excited about this. They are going to make a mess of it, aren’t they?

 

In the original Aladdin story, Aladdin sort of fulfills the Fool archetype — he’s a bumbling but good-hearted slacker who stumbles into his good fortune and magical powers. His primary merit is that he is too lazy and too naive to use the genie’s powers for destructive purposes. Making him a “savior” seems like just the kind of stretch of the source material that OUAT likes.

Perhaps “saviors” are people with inherent/innate “white” magic, meant to be used only for the greater good. In this sense, I can see how Aladdin and Emma might fit the bill — it’s playing with the trope of not wanting the magic to begin with, but getting it accidentally (by contrast, what defines villains is their active cultivation of magic). But if it’s being channelled towards selfish/personal ends, maybe it starts corrupting its host? It would certainly explain why Emma’s been looking so sickly and unhappy even after the DO curse got broken. If, following Rumple’s little motto, all magic has a price, then it would make sense that savior magic wouldn’t be an exception.

 

[thedarkonedearie]

So I can’t say they won’t make a mess of this…like the dark one mythology.  But just because there are other saviors doesn’t diminish Emma’s character or who she is and what she stands for in the least bit for me.  That would be like saying Rumple’s character took a hit when we learned about all the other dark ones.  I think opening this theme of what it means to be a savior and opening up a mythology that I never knew existed could be very interesting.  However, it has so much potential that they could easily screw it all up.  I also will say though, that I’m happy Aladdin isn’t just being brought in as a guest appearance just to say they incorporated him (cough cough Hercules and Megara).  It seems he and  Jafar are vital to OUAT’s story and they are connecting him directly to the Savior.  To me, that’s awesome.

[MatthewPaul]

I think the idea of there being multiple saviors actually makes sense. In the real world, haven’t there been many different saviors that were thought to have existed throughout history, depending upon various religious beliefs and whatnot? Jesus is the obvious one that comes to mind, but there’s also Muhammad, Buddha, Prometheus, Osiris, Thor, and countless others. So Emma not being the only savior ever doesn’t sound so far-fetched.

[RumplesGirl]

So I can’t say they won’t make a mess of this…like the dark one mythology.  But just because there are other saviors doesn’t diminish Emma’s character or who she is and what she stands for in the least bit for me.

Other saviors doesn’t worry me IF we hadn’t been told that Saviors are made a certain way (ie: The truest of true love + Rumple’s putting a drop of that on the Dark Curse Scroll). Like, if that’s the recipe for a Savior then I don’t get how anyone else in recent history can fit that bill

"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"

[RumplesGirl]

I think the idea of there being multiple saviors actually makes sense. In the real world, haven’t there been many different saviors that were thought to have existed throughout history, depending upon various religious beliefs and whatnot? Jesus is the obvious one that comes to mind, but there’s also Muhammad, Buddha, Prometheus, Osiris, Thor, and countless others. So Emma not being the only savior ever doesn’t sound so far-fetched.

Quote

Well yes but like I said above those are universal constructs/ archetypes that don’t have a set in stone recipe like Emma did. That’s my issue. Of course there can be many heroes/savior figures but they’ve already given a certain formula for Emma’s own saviorhood.

 

ETA: I can see them explaining it with something like “every land has a different set of rules/formula in creating a savior” (except that Agrabah is in the EF, per Jane)

"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"

[Author]

Posts