- This topic has 26 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I think the reason Hades wanted to get just Regina out of the Underworld originally is because he knew that he wanted Zelena to join him down there, and he worried that Regina may stand in the way of he and Zelena’s relationship….especially if Regina convinced her sister that Hades was double crossing her in some way.
[adrotate group="5"]"If you go as far as you can see...you will then see enough to go even further." - Finn Balor
Interestingly, I think Hades is the only major villain in the entires series to date for whom no backstory has been provided in the form of flashbacks. For all the other villains, we had one if not more episodes of flashbacks, usually showing them as a youngster in at least one. It was through these that we learned their primary motivation. Hades only had ‘Our Decay’ and it wasn’t during a formative time as it was for Rumple, Regina, Cora, Hook, Greg, Pan, Zelena, the Snow Queen, Cruella, Ursula or Arthur.
I am wondering if we will need a Hades or Zades thread at some point 😉
While most people have drawn parallels between Zades and Rumbelle, I think think Zades &/or Rumbelle has other parallels to Captain Swan. Or maybe it is just me 😉 But is seemed more pertinent in Firebird with the pointed comments Regina was making at Hook 😀
All of these duos/ships men started out “villains” that were really just “misunderstood bad boys” that could be “fixed” or “changed” by having women loving them.
I just also wonder what kind of messages that is, intentionally or not, communicated with these stories, when considering the similar and/or different paths they have taken or are taking.
And it seems even odder that CS hasn’t had TLK yet, but Zades has, and Rumbelle had (though an aborted version, in Skin-deep).
Zades relationship *at the moment* seems healthier than CS, which seems healthier than Rumbelle. At least in my opinion, your mileage may vary 🙂
All of these duos/ships men started out “villains” that were really just “misunderstood bad boys” that could be “fixed” or “changed” by having women loving them. I just also wonder what kind of messages that is, intentionally or not, communicated with these stories, when considering the similar and/or different paths they have taken or are taking.
It’s not a message I am comfortable with, personally. Women aren’t saints and we aren’t the way to redemption for men, which more or less takes away our importance as individuals and agency with our own ambitions, struggles, joys and woes that has nothing to do with men, be they our fathers, brothers, husbands, or lovers. But, most people ’round this joint will tell you, I tend to see everything heavily skewed threw a feminist lens.
The other flip of this is that women on this show are redeemed via childbirth. Babies are apparently magical for women. It’s all we need to feel whole and be “complete.”
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"All of these duos/ships men started out “villains” that were really just “misunderstood bad boys” that could be “fixed” or “changed” by having women loving them. I just also wonder what kind of messages that is, intentionally or not, communicated with these stories, when considering the similar and/or different paths they have taken or are taking.
It’s not a message I am comfortable with, personally. Women aren’t saints and we aren’t the way to redemption for men, which more or less takes away our importance as individuals and agency with our own ambitions, struggles, joys and woes that has nothing to do with men, be they our fathers, brothers, husbands, or lovers. But, most people ’round this joint will tell you, I tend to see everything heavily skewed threw a feminist lens. The other flip of this is that women on this show are redeemed via childbirth. Babies are apparently magical for women. It’s all we need to feel whole and be “complete.”
This….this…and this!
"If you go as far as you can see...you will then see enough to go even further." - Finn Balor
All of these duos/ships men started out “villains” that were really just “misunderstood bad boys” that could be “fixed” or “changed” by having women loving them. I just also wonder what kind of messages that is, intentionally or not, communicated with these stories, when considering the similar and/or different paths they have taken or are taking.
It’s not a message I am comfortable with, personally. Women aren’t saints and we aren’t the way to redemption for men, which more or less takes away our importance as individuals and agency with our own ambitions, struggles, joys and woes that has nothing to do with men, be they our fathers, brothers, husbands, or lovers. But, most people ’round this joint will tell you, I tend to see everything heavily skewed threw a feminist lens. The other flip of this is that women on this show are redeemed via childbirth. Babies are apparently magical for women. It’s all we need to feel whole and be “complete.”
THIS! So many times this. Though, @RG, I also share your feminist soapbox so I will readily admit to a particular perspective on these two tropes.
To answer@sierraleone ‘s original question, which I think is really pertinent, about “what kind of message that is” — well, it’s a tried and true one. It’s been around the block at least a few times: say, from the original B&B fairytale to Jane Eyre to something like The Breakfast Club to Twilight, to 50 shades of gray, to you name it. The broader question is why the heck is it appealing? And to whom? Or is it just the case that we have a reactionary, misogynist, aging group of entertainment professionals (lets call it Hollywood culture) trying to peddle a message that no longer rings true with the current moment/audience, but said professionals are too set in their ways to pay attention? I mean, it looks like by and large (this here fan community notwithstanding), it is appealing to people. Which is kinda mind-boggling.
Salvation by baby is also incredibly tiresome. I wish I could say that this is a gender issue that stems from the fact that a good chunk of the senior writers, except for Jane, are men. And to some extent, considering how laughably unrealistic everything having to do with babies has been on this show — from labor to care — it does feel like it’s being written by pre-teen boys with as clear an idea of human reproduction as they might have of String theory. But I think the whole “woman’s ultimate fulfillment is motherhood” is actually deeper than that, and has something to do with an ingrained US middle/upper class white parenting ideology.
All of these duos/ships men started out “villains” that were really just “misunderstood bad boys” that could be “fixed” or “changed” by having women loving them. I just also wonder what kind of messages that is, intentionally or not, communicated with these stories, when considering the similar and/or different paths they have taken or are taking.
It’s not a message I am comfortable with, personally. Women aren’t saints and we aren’t the way to redemption for men, which more or less takes away our importance as individuals and agency with our own ambitions, struggles, joys and woes that has nothing to do with men, be they our fathers, brothers, husbands, or lovers. But, most people ’round this joint will tell you, I tend to see everything heavily skewed threw a feminist lens. The other flip of this is that women on this show are redeemed via childbirth. Babies are apparently magical for women. It’s all we need to feel whole and be “complete.”
THIS! So many times this. Though, @RG, I also share your feminist soapbox so I will readily admit to a particular perspective on these two tropes. To answer@sierraleone ‘s original question, which I think is really pertinent, about “what kind of message that is” — well, it’s a tried and true one. It’s been around the block at least a few times: say, from the original B&B fairytale to Jane Eyre to something like The Breakfast Club to Twilight, to 50 shades of gray, to you name it. The broader question is why the heck is it appealing? And to whom? Or is it just the case that we have a reactionary, misogynist, aging group of entertainment professionals (lets call it Hollywood culture) trying to peddle a message that no longer rings true with the current moment/audience, but said professionals are too set in their ways to pay attention? I mean, it looks like by and large (this here fan community notwithstanding), it is appealing to people. Which is kinda mind-boggling.
While I agree with a lot of what has been written here, I have to stand up for my beloved Jane Eyre, which is nowhere in the same league as those other lesser pieces of media (I dare not call them art)! It was a groundbreaking novel when it was written (by a woman no less) which challenged the rigid class and gender conventions of Victorian England. In may ways, Jane Eyre could be said to be the first proto-feminist novel ever written in that not only did Jane consider herself to be the equal of Mr. Rochester, but he likewise considered her to be his equal — something profound and almost unheard of in the 1840s. Moreover, Jane Eyre never sought to reform Rochester; in fact, she outright rejected his plea for her to be his savior when she said he must trust in God to save him instead. Without giving too much away for those who haven’t read it (please do so), Jane and Rochester don’t reconcile until after he’s undergone an inner transformation and reckoning due to immense suffering.
"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
The topic ‘Lord of the Underworld In Storybrooke’ is closed to new replies.