- This topic has 155 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The sharks were having a feeding frenzy?
Also Hook implied he was going to kill Belle in the library. Could that be the twice she was referring to? Because if you count her cell, the library and the town line, that’s actually 3 times.
[adrotate group="5"]All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of FelixAs to you overall point: are Hook’s crimes on the same level? Objectively, no. But a lot of that is also because we don’t know the full extent of his crimes. We know that he did something to “Rufio” and that he was doing “Pan’s dirty work” but outside of allusions, we don’t know what those are. It’s only speculation and we will most likely not get into it, in universe.
As for what was the “dirty work” Hook did for Pan, I think Hook may have drowned Tigerlily and killed Rufio on Pan’s orders.
To be fair, we really don’t know the full extent of Rumple’s or Regina’s crimes either. I mean, Rumple was alive for hundreds of years and he wasn’t exactly concerned about collateral damage as far as getting to Bae. And who knows how many villages Regina had massacred?
And on the “dirty work” thing…did Pan ever actually say that Hook had already done Pan’s dirty work? In 305, when Pan is talking to Hook on Dead Man’s Peak, he says “Come and work for me, like the old days” and “We’ve done business before” but the mention of “dirty work” doesn’t come into play until Pan is describing the terms of his new deal…”What do you want me to do?” “Come be in my employ. Do my dirty work.” “What dirty work?” “When the time comes, I’ll let you know.” None of which happened. Now I fully admit that that’s just my being nitpicky, because really, any work or business that could’ve been done for Pan was probably not anything good. But I’m guessing that if it had been something that horrible it would be haunting Hook and we’d have seen or heard about it–just a guess though. Regardless, when Pan specifically mentioned “dirty work”, Hook had to ask what he meant. (Unless it was mentioned somewhere else and I forgot about it?)
On the subject of Rufio though, it didn’t even occur to me to think of that as a crime…judging by what we’ve seen of the Lost Boys and the context in which Hook said it, I just figured that it was self defense. Also, Tiger Lily ? Unless I’m forgetting, we never heard of Tiger Lily (or any of the Indians) having existed on Neverland at all in the OUAT universe.
On the subject of Rufio though, it didn’t even occur to me to think of that as a crime…judging by what we’ve seen of the Lost Boys and the context in which Hook said it, I just figured that it was self defense. Also, Tiger Lily ? Unless I’m forgetting, we never heard of Tiger Lily (or any of the Indians) having existed on Neverland at all in the OUAT universe.
Well, Hook is the one who brings up Rufio and whatever he did elicits a growl from Felix. I honestly have no idea. It was most likely a duel or fight in which it was kill or be killed…we don’t know anything about and we won’t because they can’t use Rufio outside of a name drop.
As to Tiger Lily…we don’t know if they exist in the ONCEiverse. But Hook trying to drown Tiger Lily is keeping with Disney/Barrie canon which is where POM is coming from, I do believe.
ETA: as to the dirty work…it could be anything, though it’s Pan so it’s not going to be sunshine and kittens. What Hook was doing for him, it wasn’t good. But we most likely will never know what Hook was doing.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Also Hook implied he was going to kill Belle in the library. Could that be the twice she was referring to? Because if you count her cell, the library and the town line, that’s actually 3 times.
There he was threatening her to get her to call Rumplestiltskin so Smee could go into his shop and steal Bae’s shawl. He wasn’t really trying to kill her there, because if he had killed her, how could she have called Rumple to make him leave his shop? I really don’t think he tried to kill her again after the cell thing; he was just using her to hurt Rumple–which, since she had absolutely nothing to do with Milah’s death, is of course still pretty terrible.
As to Tiger Lily…we don’t know if they exist in the ONCEiverse. But Hook trying to drown Tiger Lily is keeping with Disney/Barrie canon which is where POM is coming from, I do believe.
Yes, I remember that from the book and movie…but in both of those instances Pan goes out of his way to save her from drowning rather than orchestrate it, and that really doesn’t seem like something OUAT’s Pan would do, haha.
As to Tiger Lily…we don’t know if they exist in the ONCEiverse. But Hook trying to drown Tiger Lily is keeping with Disney/Barrie canon which is where POM is coming from, I do believe.
Yes, I remember that from the book and movie…but in both of those instances Pan goes out of his way to save her from drowning rather than orchestrate it, and that really doesn’t seem like something OUAT’s Pan would do, haha.
No but Pan might have ordered Hook to do the deed for whatever reason.
Overall, though, it’s a rather moot point. I honestly don’t think show will ever flashback to any truly vile deeds Hook has done, unlike with Regina and Rumple. And this isn’t a criticism of Hook so much as the show, but the writers stopped being interested in selling Hook as the VILLAIN who was brought on to rival Rumple awhile ago. Any and all flashbacks we get of Hook will most likely not focus on anything dark, like massacring an village or killing mute maids.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"No but Pan might have ordered Hook to do the deed for whatever reason. Overall, though, it’s a rather moot point. I honestly don’t think show will ever flashback to any truly vile deeds Hook has done, unlike with Regina and Rumple. And this isn’t a criticism of Hook so much as the show, but the writers stopped being interested in selling Hook as the VILLAIN who was brought on to rival Rumple awhile ago. Any and all flashbacks we get of Hook will most likely not focus on anything dark, like massacring an village or killing mute maids.
Perhaps Pan ordered Hook to drown her with the intention of saving her himself so that he could make her or her family do something for him? But yes, moot point, haha.
I guess I just have a hard time imagining him as having done anything sadistic for no reason…I think I never did see him as much of a villain aside from the flashbacks in 209. I think the reason why is that in the episode in which he’s introduced, he seems like a terrible person at first but before the idea of him as “villain” sticks (for me, anyway) we see him (a) treat Milah as an actual person, (b) be willing to die to protect the woman he loves (and vice versa) and (c) see that woman be brutally murdered in front of him and then have his hand chopped off. I can certainly understand his desire for revenge.
Probably Milah is a big variable here–while she also seems pretty awful at first, we later see how miserable she is and that even after asking him multiple times, her husband refuses to do anything to try to improve her life. So I really don’t blame her that much for wanting to leave. Leaving Bae wasn’t a good thing to do, but she did leave him with a father who clearly loved him (and growing up in a home filled with hatred and resentment isn’t exactly a great situation for a child either) and later planned on going back for him (whether seriously or not, we don’t know). Then she went off with someone who could give her the life she wanted and who loved and respected her in a way Rumple apparently didn’t. (It’s clear that the rest of the crew respects her as well; when she gives them an order they immediately move to comply.)
Then I think other people just see her as a terrible woman who abandoned her family when she was seduced by a pirate, in which case one’s view would certainly be different.
I guess I just have a hard time imagining him as having done anything sadistic for no reason
None of our villains do things that are sadistic for no reason. They all have reasons, it’s whether or not the audience subjectively accepts their reasons.
Example.
Regina sadistically orders the death of an entire village when they will not give up Snow White. You and I are put it down as an atrocity. @WickedRegal will dance around us telling us why Regina’s reasons were justified.
Rumple murders a mute maid to keep her from drawing a picture of his dagger. I can find a reasoning behind this in the form of self preservation and preservation of his child. Others have argued with me.
So anything Hook has done might be sadistic and with reason, but it all comes to down to do I, the subjective viewer, accept his reason.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"None of our villains do things that are sadistic for no reason. They all have reasons, it’s whether or not the audience subjectively accepts their reasons. Example. Regina sadistically orders the death of an entire village when they will not give up Snow White. You and I are put it down as an atrocity. @WickedRegal will dance around us telling us why Regina’s reasons were justified. Rumple murders a mute maid to keep her from drawing a picture of his dagger. I can find a reasoning behind this in the form of self preservation and preservation of his child. Others have argued with me. So anything Hook has done might be sadistic and with reason, but it all comes to down to do I, the subjective viewer, accept his reason.
Fair enough–you’re right, the villains will definitely justify their actions to themselves at least. I suppose it does come back to the fact that Hook’s crimes were far less than those of the others, both in terms of numbers and severity, and I can understand his reasoning–avenging murdered loved ones. And that’s basically Regina’s reasoning too, but she went after someone who didn’t do it instead of the person who did. I’d have much more sympathy for Regina if she had been trying to go after her mother to avenge Daniel’s death instead of someone who really wasn’t at fault for it. (Although I still wouldn’t be able to get over, say, murdering an entire village for example–but I don’t think it would have been an issue since I doubt people would have been willing to give their lives to protect Cora.)
Lots to read in this thread! 😎 I haven’t read it all yet (I will 😉 ), but in the meantime here are the thoughts that I had about heroes, and villains, and happy endings. 🙂 Or specifically, Regina.
At this point, Regina has made several successful efforts towards being a good person, and even a hero. She has helped people when it didn’t benefit her, she has saved people lives because they have become important to her. She protected Snow, of all people, by standing in front of her and saying “You’ll have to go through me first!” And she has defeated villains, for the good of all.
She has made amazing steps toward being a hero, and then she finds that her happy ending is taken away, again. And because villains don’t get happy endings, and heroes do, she thinks this means that fate (the book) is still treating her as a villain.
But I think, she just doesn’t truly understand what a hero is. Yes, doing all of those selfless things that I listed are heroic. But that is only part of the story. Pun intended.
This is getting rather meta, but the show has already opened that box. Since the characters know their lives are stories, and their stories were written by an author, Regina should start thinking about how stories actually work.
Because villains aren’t randomly bestowed with misery as a punishment for evil, and heroes who help people aren’t just magically blessed with happy things as a reward. They have to work for it.
All those stories that end happy for the hero? They start out by having their happiness taken away, and the hero must fight against all odds in order to get it back. What makes them a hero is how they go about doing that, and also never giving up.
So what has just happened to Regina? She did some heroic things, for selfless reasons. But those were just her first steps toward being a hero. Originally she was the villain in someone else’s story. Then she acted heroically in a story about everyone. Now, she gets to be the hero of her own story, to fight for what she deserves.
Now she is being tested. This is her chance to decide what path she will take towards that goal. So far, she has stopped herself from going down the wrong path. Now we will see if she will find the right one.
I don’t think the book sees her as a villain at all, and I think this challenge, this obstacle in her path, is actually proof of that. As she is new to being a hero, she doesn’t actually know what “being a hero” truly means. From her life as a villain, she only knows of heroes as people who defeat villains. (An obvious reversal of our usual one-dimensional view of villains as only existing to challenge the hero, and not developed beyond that.)
Since she is used to seeing heroes win, she doesn’t see the arduous journey it took for them to get there. Someone needs to tell her this quote: “Everything will be alright in the end. If it is not alright, then it is not yet the end.”
That quote is meant to be a general philosophy of life, a reminder to never give up hope. But doesn’t it apply perfectly to someone who knows they are in a story, and are destined to a happy ending? 😀
SFG 🙂
Keeper of Anna’s Awkward Babbling and Kristoff’s Fur-trimmed Tunic!
The topic ‘Time For The Villains To Get Their Happy Ending’ is closed to new replies.