Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I know they’re gonna explain it away somehow (wasn’t there some scene where Hades tells Zelena he made it look that way for her, or something?) but it just bugs me that the Underworld looks like SB. I know they did it for practical reasons, because that’s the place they’ve got to film at, but the concept of the Underworld being a replica of a specific town in the world, it’s just dumb IMO. The Underworld is a whole separate, unique realm, and it should bloody well look like a unique realm, or it loses credibility.
I don’t know that i really think it is the real Underworld. It is more like this is a place that Hades has created and trapped certain people in. I think that there is the real Underworld where most of the dead are at. They just have to find a way to explain why certain people are in this Storybrooke Underworld and certain people are not and that is the best way to do it. This isn’t really the Underworld.
[adrotate group="5"]On an abstract level, that’s a can of worms argument, especially if you’re in the US. (Along the lines of “do you give someone a gun/ teach someone to shoot if they might kill… what if that saves someone else’s life?” and so forth). I’m not touching that with a 40 foot pole
I’ll just say that I think that’s a slightly different type of moral slippery slope than some of Rumple’s more blatant misdeeds. I should amend my tone — I probably came across as more defensive or Rumple than I meant to be. I don’t think Rumple, as he’s written now, is defensible. The intent of my post was more about Rumple’s characterization. I think @Bar Farer nailed what happened to Rumple’s writing. After 3B Rumple is retconned in such a way that what was once “cowardice” became cowardice, no scare quotes.@RG also has something about this in Rumple’s thread, I think. From my perspective, S1-3 Rumple’s character is about the struggle of circumstance of birth vs abstract morality. It was also about toxic masculinity. “Cowardice” in scare quotes because the ideal of EF at the time is to send children to war, and to use the peasants for canon fodder. One could interpret Milah’s story as being about the social penalties of having a husband who does not conform to the standards of “proper” masculinity. Rumple’s story was also about a father who would do anything for his son, morality be damned — and this backfires for him and for Neal terribly. But what was the alternative? He was placed in an absolutely impossible situation. The characterization was thoughtful, but I think A&E were very ambivalent about Rumple from the start, and I suspect that this ambivalence has something to do with subtle classism. (The same way that OUAT is subtly racist). Essentially, one of the “take away points” of Rumple’s development is that if you give the “peasants” some power, they’re likely to misuse it. After 3B and the reboot, the quotation marks are removed, and the aspects of Rumple’s character that were before in “double speak” (which is to say, we had two lines of interpretation: Rumple’s society views him one way, but we, the audience, are shown a different story) are collapsed into one. Now, those features of Rumple that before were shown to be consequences of him reacting to his circumstances in a particular way are re-inscribed as inherent attributes of his character. I profoundly dislike this re-writing of Rumple because, among other things, it cements what was already present but a bit more subtle in Rumple S1-3: they first show us a story about someone from a very marginalized segment of society struggle against his circumstances, in ways that are often very problematic and have absolutely tragic consequences for others and for him. But 3b+ changes that, takes these same exact points, and says “that’s what people like this are like. Give them power, and they are corrupted to want more power.” It’s like the show starts with saying “People in a position of structural weakness sometimes do terrible things, but lets look at their circumstances. Maybe it’s more complicated.” and then it goes “Nope. They’re just bad people.” But at this point, I’ve written about this class thing so many times on here that I’m sounding like a broken record. :-/ Sorry for the rant! And on a lighter note, is anyone here watching The Expanse?I am sorry, but no. Rumpel taught Regina and Cora how to take a heart so they would kill. It is not because they might kill. He gave them a gun, taught them how to use it, then discussed how and who to kill with it. He is responsible for doing that and therefore partially responsible for those kills.
I don’t really want to go into Rumpel, but for me nothing has changed about his character. The only difference is that in Season 5 he said everything that i have always thought about his character. His character is a coward. He did wrong things out of fear even before he became the dark one and certainly since. Those actions have seriously harmed his family. He did those things because he wanted personal power. He became the dark one because he wanted power. He is still the dark one because he still wants power. Nothing is different between Rumpel now, in my opinion, and Rumpel in Season 1. He is exactly as i have always thought he was.
I was waiting for someone to object to this. It absolutely is not the most perfect comparison. You’re right, Hook did cause what he eventually fixed, whereas Rumple was just doing it for his family. Although I will say if you buy Hook not really being in control, than you could put the blame on Emma for turning him into the DO. But really, the comparison was both dark ones sacrificing themselves to save everyone. It was a loose comparison.
I do not buy that Hook was not in control. Emma and Rumpel were in control and completely at fault for their actions. How can it not be Hook’s fault for releasing evil dark ones on the world and yet be Emma’s fault for not letting Hook die? Either everything is not your fault because you are the dark one or everything is your fault. Emma was the dark one too. Emma clearly could decide one way or the other even if it was harder, so so could Hook.
“At great fault” from whose perspective? For whom? The morality of this show at this point is so off its rocker that I honestly can’t tell whose perspective you are currently speaking from. Regina and Cora might say that that skill was very useful for them throughout the years. Emma might agree (Violet’s heart). Snow might too (saving Charming). We’ve already established that DO!Rumple is a Machiavellian type character. In the initial six months (or so) post curse, he’s vengeful and sort of drunk on his power. He’s someone who has been oppressed all his life. This isn’t about “cowardice.” Sorry, none of Rumple’s character is really about “cowardice.” It’s about class and privilege. It’s about the idea that “underclass” people are inherently dangerous, and if given power, will do bad things with it (RG, feel free to chase me off my soapbox). Until he became the DO, any “uprising” from someone like Rumple would simply have landed him dead. After the initial “revolutionary” violence, Rumple settled into pragmatic Machiavellanism, i.e. the ends justify the means. That’s the kind of villain he is, and on that, the show has been actually very consistent. Teaching Cora and Regina to take hearts fulfilled specific goals.
At the perspective of it is not alright to teach people how to do something specifically so that they will go out and murder people.
I definitely think that Rumpel is a coward. The base level is Bae wants to go and fight to try and stop the ogres and Rumpel ran from the battle. I completely understand the circumstances as to why he made that choice, but Rumpel on the show thinks it is the wrong choice. That Rumpel let go of Bae’s hand instead of jumping through the portal and losing his power. He let Regina make him believe that Belle was working with her for just that moment and Belle was locked up for 30 years. Even in the last episode, Rumpel taking the dark one power back instead of just living with Belle as a man. He continues in these big moments to make choices out of fear. He makes choices that hurt the people he loves. I understand not liking the word coward, but i do think that Rumpel makes wrong choices in these moments.
Milah I’ll grant and recoginze that I rather forgot about her. The mute maid and the cart guy are within the pre-losing-Bae time period I already stated was the “murdering” time. Gepetto’s parents and Gaston were cursed, not killed. The former can be uncursed if someone chose to do so. The latter we only recently learned was dead The Fairy I’ll also grant as I forgot about her. Rumple is not a good guy. He’s manipulative, and can be cold and cruel. But he also recognizes his own villainy–“I’m the villain. And villains don’t get happy endings” (and then dies to save the town without having first tired to kill them all). That to me is a big difference. It certainly doesn’t make him a saint and if anyone has listened to the podcast this season OR read anything I’ve written, they know that I’m really struggling to still like/defend Rumple like I did in seasons past.
I don’t agree at all that Gaston or Gepetto’s parents were cursed not killed. Especially when Gaston as a flower was cut in half, i think everyone considered that a murder at the time. Also when we saw the creepy puppets in the shop in present day, it was clear that they were probably not coming back from that. Though even if that is not a murder, it is still almost as good as. I also very much think that Rumpel is at great fault for teaching Cora and Regina how to pull hearts, knowing the sort of people they would be. Rumpel can see the future. He taught Cora to pull hearts so she would murder the king, and Regina so that she would eventually do the curse. He taught them how to murder. That doesn’t make him completely at fault. They are people with their own minds, but it certainly does make him partially responsible.
However this I just don’t understand. If the bad guy is supposed to do bad things, how can you find that offensive. It is logic. They don’t get a pass. We are supposed to hate them, not get offended. Being offended to me, sounds like you are taking it personal. But I don’t get what kind of behavior you are expecting from a villain.
The behavior i am expecting from a villain is that they then don’t get to date the main good guy and be called a hero with a snap of the writers fingers.
We’re back to the reason why we still watch–because I think this show speaks to a lot of social problems in our world and I like to talk about those. I guess it comes down to where you stand on the philosophical question of it the author is dead or not and what is text. For me, text is everything that is written about the show including this comment right here. A and E (and other writing staff) are not “gods” (in terms of the philosophical question, not an infallible sense) who have the final word on what is good, bad, and appropriate in their show. They might create the original text but everything that exists around it is text and equally valid.
So agree, i have never understand this idea that the writers are god and everything they say about the show is somehow more valid then how other people view the show. It isn’t. They don’t get to decide what is rape or what is a healthy relationship or what is misogynistic or what is racist or even what is canon. Just because they are writing a tv show doesn’t mean they get to decide those things. Morality exists and discussion surrounding it, the struggle of learning to talk about those important issues, is a valid reason to watch a television show and cannot be dismissed because some writers don’t understand what they are writing.
For me it’s far more than that they don’t even think about it. You can’t think about something you don’t realize is a problem. They have fallen into pretty typical depictions of men and women that exist in media. They are problematic depictions. Greatly problematic. But until they recognize that these depictions are problematic, then they won’t course correct. I don’t want to start talking about privilege because that’s a whole other issue but in media like TV it is often very hard for white heterosexual men to write compelling healthy relationships because they don’t understand that some of the things they’ve been shown and told are romantic…aren’t. But they sit in a place of privilege and don’t have to confront what it feels like to be stalked, abused, toyed with, made into objects. Again, I point to Jessica Jones as something everyone should be watching. (broken record, I know)
Exactly agree. The writers just don’t even have any clue what they are writing and that is not okay.
What you depicted here is the “battered wife syndrom”. She did something that pissed off her boyfriend, and he becomes violent towards her or other people, instead of putting the blame on him, she blames herself for making him angry. This is a syndrom that is common in abusive relationship.
Yes, but in real life, people aren’t literally being controlled by a “dark force” that was transferred into their body through a magical sword from Camelot. To compare it to real life abusive relationships doesn’t really seem fair. The writers are trying to make us believe that he literally had no control over what he was doing. If he literally can’t control it, it’s not fair to loop him into the category of “abusive boyfriends.” If he was always abusive, but just controlled it better when he wasn’t the DO, then ok. But he was not like that with Emma pre DO. This felt like it came out of nowhere. They want us to believe this darkness forced him to do these things. I think there is a difference. Not downplaying abusive relationships here, and I do see the parallel you are trying to make, it’s just this show is way too cray cray for me to think logically about it and attempt to compare it to actual real life relationships.
Emma and Hook’s relationship is without a doubt depicted as abusive before Hook became the dark one. Just like Rumpel was a coward and a murderer before, being the dark one just upped the traits that were already there. Hook was a murderer and their relationship was abusive and then he became the dark one so he had less control. He was still the same.
The darkness did clearly affect Rumple, no denying that but look at the degrees. You called Rumple ruthless but I strongly disagree with that, especially in terms of Rumple vs Hook. After the initial taking on of the DO’s curse and the first few months, Rumple did not murder anyone to our knowledge (you can speculate but canonically within the story, he did not). Instead he chose to make deals. He chose to give people what they wanted (or thought they wanted) in return for other favors. Yes, he manipulated the HECK out of people and situations but always played into what those people claimed to have wanted and always gave them a choice.
I am going to have to disagree that Rumpel didn’t murder people. The mute maid and cart guy six months after he became the dark one, Milah a few years after he became the dark one, Gepetto’s parents 60 years before curse, Cinderella’s fairy, Gaston, in the years right before the curse.
He also aught Cora and Regina both how to take a heart so that they could murder people. He brought that gypsy girl to Regina’s magic lesson, so Regina could murder her. He purposely taught Regina magic so that she would eventual become so evil that she would do the dark curse. He created the dark curse which was only cast through murder. He was going to torture and murder Robin Hood, but didn’t because Belle helped Robin escape and begged Rumpel not to murder him. We see Rumpel in the flashbacks few an far between, but he has done his share of murdering throughout history.
Rumpel doesn’t get a pass for helping other people to do evil just because they wanted it. That doesn’t make it not partially his fault too, doing bad deals was still wrong, especially when he knew that they would lead to someone being murdered or cursed or separated from their loved ones. That doesn’t make Hook good or better, but Rumpel wasn’t a nice guy either.
