- This topic has 50 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 12 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
NO! I love seeing Mr. Gold this way. 😀 Besides, it’s not like we aren’t seeing his evil side. We still get to see his trickster ways back in the Enchanted Forest. So, Rumpelstiltskin will always be around, but Mr. Gold will begin to reform his ways. I like the mirror images the show is presenting us with his character. We get to see him as the evil trickster back in the Enchanted Forest, but we get to see a slighter softer version of him in Storybrooke.
[adrotate group="5"]That comment about softer version of Mr. Gold remains me something he told Regina in 1st season. It was when Kathryn was found and Regina was angry because she was not killed. “It is not so easy to kill someone in this world” -probably not the exact quote, but that was the idea- Mr. Gold is softer in our world because our world is softer than EF; there, you take revenge by killing people, not suing them. It is a harder world with different rules, different perception… and the characters act in consequence.
In my opinion, when coming across children, Rumplestiltskin would be also kind with them. Maybe in a different way, but still kind.
There have been some deals without harming consequences, even with adults.Think about Jimini: Rumplestiltskin gave him a potion that turns people in puppets. The price was just leaving the puppets -ok, the spell came with other consequences, but those were not the wizard’s price- .In fact… Rumplestiltskin is not evil. He is amoral. He acts according to his interests, but his goal is not hurt people, steal their happy endings or whatever. So he can allow himself to charge people whatever he wants for his magic, following his own rules: if he likes some persons, he can perfectly charge them for nothing, or for symbolic price. It is something to take into account, I think: the difference between “evil” and “amorality” ^^
PS: By the way, in folktales, Fairies are also amoral 😆
@The Fairest wrote:
But then isn’t that Regina’s fault? She’s the one who called Mr. Gold for help. She should have known better too.
It’s Regina’s fault anyway, she was the one putting Henry into this position in the first place. Should blame Emma though as well: If she had believed earlier, Henry wouldn’t have felt so desperate to prove to her, that everything in the book is true, so he suffered the sleeping curse, and now has these “nightmares”. But would otherwise the curse have been broken?
Should Regina know better? Maybe, but does she have any other choice than to call for Gold here?
But we’re talking about Gold here, his motive. My point is, that Gold is trying to do principally good here, without any ulterior motive at this moment, but he still might unwittingly put Henry even more in harm’s way, so it can look differently later. Furthermore, it doesn’t mean, that Gold, or it maybe more Rumpelstiltskin / The Dark One, won’t make use of it some other time. He is an opportunist, as Trickster wrote, amoral.
And I’m sure we’re going to get to see more of his “tougher” sides again. After all, he is still looking for his son, is he, and guess he is still willing to do a lot to find him. Not to mention there are some people who want to take revenge on him, doubt he will let that happen with some soft grandfatherly understanding attitude, he will try to squirm out of it in good ol’ Rumpelstiltskin manner.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
It is a bit much to blame Emma for not believing Henry. She at first did not because the whole story sounds crazy–a town full of Fairytale characters, all trapped in time, unable to remember. The story itself sounds like a Fairytale story for children. But Emma did not want to hurt Henry, so she played along to make him happy.
When the evidence starting piling up, she did not want to believe–to have to bear responsibility for a whole town of people is a huge burden to have, and her main priority has always been Henry.
@Elle wrote:
🙂 I don’t think it he has any ulterior motive for helping Henry. 🙂
I agree. Sometimes we get so caught up in anticipating the intricate plot twists that might be hidden behind a character’s actions that we forget this is primarily a character-driven, not a plot driven, show. I think Gold’s willingness to help for free was just to remind us he does have a soft spot even though he can also be ruthless in pursuit of his own agenda.
As much as I love Gold/Rumple I think he always has an ulterior motive…Granted he likes Henry but may see him as a portal to get through to the other side of the barrier line…he may need emma to break this new curse…or he really wants to know what Hook and Cora are up to. After Rumple helped get rid of Cora I started to think that he may be a tad bit afraid of her…just theories.
@TimeSpacer wrote:
Sometimes we get so caught up in anticipating the intricate plot twists that might be hidden behind a character’s actions that we forget this is primarily a character-driven, not a plot driven, show..
How do you know it is primarily a character driven show? I’m not saying your wrong, I’m just curious.
I dont know any of Kitsis and Horrorwitz’s previous shows so I dont know.And a nother thing. Everyone seems to be positive that Rumple has these granfatherly or just friendly feelings for Henry. But why?
All we’ve seen of them interacting in the past have been that time Henry was in the shop bying something. And Rumple dont know Henry is his granson, if thats the case.
Then you say- “Well he likes children”
YES- granted he does, but in the past what we have seen, its only been when he could have them/take them and use them for something… then he liked them very much.Honestly I think Gold/Rumpel helped Henry because of these factors:
A) He genuinely DOES like Henry. Gold clearly likes Children, as far as I can tell he’s not harmed any children. He waited until Regina grew up to do anything to her. He’s never harmed Henry for the stuff Henry’s done to him in other episodes. I think he saw Henry’s distress and the FATHER in him kicked in. A parent will do anything for their child. Gold’s child was taken away from him by forces he didn’t control, so he finds substitute in Henry. (He’s ALWAYS nice to Henry. One of the first episodes he’s all ‘Hey Henry! How you doing?!’ Ect…And B) Gold knows that Henry is the link between Fairytale world and Real World. So he knows that Henry has the power to get Emma and Snow back over. Which is in the interest of EVERYONE. (Emma owes Gold a favor, remember? I’d imagine he wants to cash in on that in the one way he thinks will work, now that he can’t leave town, which is to have her find Bae.) So he’s found the most humane way to get Henry’s help, while also helping Henry because he needs it.
If Henry had not gotten control of the fire, Henry may well have died in his sleep from the magic fire. I agree with the above statement, Gold is Amoral, he’s not evil. He just sees the world in a different way to what others do. Exactly like Regina and Blue and all the others. No one in this show is fully evil. Even Cora. (That is going on what Tony Amendola said at London Expo btw.)
🙂Sorry to break to you medchen, Rumplestilkin character is never truly an evil character. He is by any means the most a neutral char of this show.
@medchen wrote:
Then you say- “Well he likes children”
YES- granted he does, but in the past what we have seen, its only been when he could have them/take them and use them for something… then he liked them very much.I’m among the ones who say this, so let me explain my point ^^
I think this way because I see the characters of Once Upon a Time as a reinterpretation of the archetypes and characters we find in Fairy Tales, so some of the features of the characters can be found in those traditional archetypes.Taken this for granted -i do, at least- Rumplestiltskin fits 3 or those archetypes: The Wizard, The Trickster, and The King of Elves. As wizard, we learnt how he got his magic from a dark source, how he went from trying to use that power for good and then turning into cruel acts… and how he has a human goal; to find his son. As the trickster, he is amoral, acts according to his interests, manipulates, etc… And as the King of Elves, he deals in children and women.
It is not neccesary to analyze the Wizard and the Trickster now, because it is the King of Elves archetype which makes me think that Rumplestiltskin is kind with children generally speaking. Because in lot of folk tales, we find that the Elven King makes a deal with a man -usually it is a game of chess: they play and if the elf wins, he takes the man’s wife.- The tales usually end with the elf and the woman falling in love and living happily ever after, while the ex-husband becomes an old embittered man.
And when the Elven King -or Queen- steals a child, and after some years the human family finds him-her again, the child who was stolen is living like a prince in the land of elves. yep, those children become mad, can’t go back to human world… but no harm was intended, the elves stole them just because they liked children. When children are not kidnapped by the elves, but get involved with them in some way, they just got some “second sight”, or especial ability, what is commonly called “to be touched by elves”. And of course, they lose some sanity by the contact -because all magic comes with a price, so to speak-What I mean with this is that, at least as far as I’m concerned, being fond of children is something that fits into the character. Of course if he can take advantage from the deal with Henry -and, probably any other child-, he is going to do so. But if not…well, it could change depending on the mood. And, of course, this doesn’t mean lack of consequences: just that the consequences are not due to the wizard’s intention
Because after all, as Gigi says, Rumplestiltskin is not an evil character: he is just amoral, neutral one.
I don’t know, maybe I wrote everything a bit messy, but i hope you can get my point. 😳
The topic ‘Gold’s ulterior motive’ is closed to new replies.