- This topic has 22 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
A love interest would have shown the deeper layers to him that didn’t seem to be there. He abandoned Rumple; he needed something to show that he wasn’t absolutely pure evil.
While I agree that a love interest is often used to soften the harsh edges of our “villains” I thin you’ve more or less hit the nail on the head with something. I don’t know if A and E wanted PP to come across as anything more than just nasty and vile. Unlike Rumple, Regina and Cora, his backstory was not an attempt to elicit sympathy by showing us “how hard” he had it originally. Rumple was the village coward trying to save his son; Regina had her first love killed in front of her; Cora was destitute but proud. Malcolm was greedy and selfish but without a reason why–we’ll probably never see how little Malcolm became adult Malcolm. The writers, I feel, intended him to be mostly evil. Which is surprising given that A and E have always said that they never wanted to write evil for the sake of evil. We’ve debated a lot about if PP actually ever loved Rumple or if he convinced himself that he never loved Rumple in order to go with through with his plans. But, a love interest would have been tricky since PP/NL was only intended to be a 11 episode arc. A real love interest, redemption story takes longer.
[adrotate group="5"]"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"The writers, I feel, intended him to be mostly evil. Which is surprising given that A and E have always said that they never wanted to write evil for the sake of evil.
Yeah, Pan was like the exception to prove their rule or something. I think they just wanted to write someone seriously, 100%, unapologetically evil, because it’d be fun to do for a change.
Pan was very selfish, sociopathic and cruel, but in many ways his desires to be young forever and have no responsibilities are indeed real world sort of problems. Maybe more so for Adam and Eddie who live in Hollywood, where they probably meet people who have endless plastic surgery and kids their own age, who are left behind in a past marriage/relationship, while they continue to go party, sometimes perhaps in a very self-destructive manner. Peter Pan Never Fails…and there was one star I recall a big fuss about always “winning”. Of course the part of ripping the heart out of their desdendants doesn’t translate, unless its a figurative sort of thing, but anyway I think what they were getting at with Pan was that he was ultimately just a very selfish, irresponsible guy who had a lot of power.
“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?” -- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass
The topic ‘TVline Spoiler Jan 21: No More Neverland’ is closed to new replies.