Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I feel they really missed some opportunities to show these types of reactions in the name of the Brother”. Besides the Henry comment hinting at other non-FTL characters, we had that one moment when Snow & Co are worrying about Greg revealing what he saw to the outside world, when Grumpy says “‘Cause you’ve seen ‘E.T’ or ‘Splash’ or any other movie where they find something magical and study it to death.” That almost came close to a potential jumping off point for someone saying “well the movie version of things are exaggerated or different” but of course the scene did not go there. Later on when we get that revelation from Henry that Frankenstein was not in the book of fairy tales and they say ” Who else is here?” there was sort of a quip from Henry where he says “The monster had bolts, not the doctor”. I wish the writers had placed that conversation in a scene with a semi-passed out Whale–who could have piped up with a funny reply/take on the movie version of his story that the other characters were refrencing.
Maybe this storyline with Greg will let them get into those kinds of scenes more.
[adrotate group="5"]“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
@SpinningGold wrote:
Hmmm, 5th in line for the throne… Does that mean George is Henry’s older brother. And Cora cursed his wife to be one step closer to the throne…Nothing to do with spite, just it would be more convenient.
If so, the family tree gets even more convoluted! Was George related to Prince Thomas, Cinderella’s husband? They kind of dropped that storyline (so many characters!) so I can’t remember where they fit in to things.
“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
@myril wrote:
I like a good argument, and in a good argument it can get tough at times. As long as it isn’t going personally and offensive I am fine with it.
You have so many interesting things to say that I’m glad you feel that way. The boards get a little less richer when we all just sit around agreeing with each other.
That said, I do agree with a lot of what you’re saying! I feel (and think it is a common perception) that romantic love gets diluted rather than increased if you spread it across more people. If the first person is dead though, then there’s no sense of that competition.
Yet it’s a funny contrast to how we feel about parental love (which in this show, apparently can also have the magic of “true” love)* As a parent, I know that my love for my first child was not lessened even as my love for my second child began. Or in the reverse–Henry in this show has now a lot of family to love, can he love them all as truly as each other? Or does he only have a special bond with one?
I’m not sure where the show runners will go, but it is interesting to see them play a little with our notions of what love is, magically true or not, just as much as what is bad or good. I’m sure this episode is going to be packed with many interesting moments to discuss.
(Edit–* In traditional fairy tales, I don’t think its the convention that parental love can be “magically true” in that way, it’s usually romantic love….certainly for Disney’s versions of these things, unless you count “Brave”. And that is Pixar-fied Disney…..)
“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
I agree, a lot of great insights on this thread. The writers have been illustrating the theme that our choices and experiences make us good or bad since season 1, when they showed Jimminy’s/Hopper’s origin story.
We may not get to learn more about Henry Sr. or Eva. There are already so many characters in the mix and every storyteller has to edit. There are always gaps that viewers have to fill in with their own experience and imagination. As long as the gaps are not about central characters and main plot points, I’m fine making a few leaps (and its even a fun part of having a fan forum in which to discuss those leaps). Otherwise, the “gap” is a mystery that the show ought to reveal at some point, or a plot hole that we fans will pick apart.
This is only a clip of Act 1, so who knows what else we will see in this episode, or down the line. I can’t wait to watch more!“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
To save time, I’m not going to go back and quote specifically, but my first post in this thread was directly in response to statements made in this thread about Hook’s character, so I felt it appropriate to discuss here. Sorry it was a little off topic from the relationship between the two, and while there are some other points I would otherwise respond to about how one defines things like evil and rates the various characters, that is better discussed elsewhere. So I’ll try to put the context of Emma and Hook back in to the point I was really trying to make.
The bottom line for me is that Hook is an interesting character, that could have a potential storyline of redemption through a new love with Emma. But of course, if one takes the view that everything he’s done was fair game, by his code and the world he’s come from, to its logical conclusion, then, he doesn’t need redemption! Perhaps that opens up a different angle on how he would interact with Emma, maybe he shakes up her notions of what is good and bad. But if you want a redemption storyline, then its ok for him to be judged as having done bad things, so Emma can be the one to show him goodness.
“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
@dena81 wrote:
My theory? Somehow August arranged it with Neal to protect her or something like that. So he’s playing the boyfriend/fiancee etc Why? because the filming pics where August and Neal are talking, Tamara doesn't look like she's watching them, it's almost like they're staked out there for her So, the whole coffee bit is setup and that’s why when he sees Emma he’s like “It’s complicated” because I’m sure he wants to be like “I want to tell you the whole story so you don’t think I moved on because I haven’t” After all why did they use that wording? Why did Ausiello focus on that word as did JMo in her interview? Complicated is not what you use to describe, hey it’s been 11 years and I just moved on and fell in love with someone else, sorry. I know some thought it was complicated due to her not being magical which i still don’t believe, there’s too much emphasis. And he’s stuck in this role but he probably cares about Tamara in a way and he also has to keep up the pretense of her protector or whatever and you can’t just say “Oh HAI THIS IS THE COMPLICATED THING” cuz then Tamara will be all “Huh?” so there’s something I think he knwos more of that we havent’ found out yet.
The phrase “It’s complicated” is almost a cliche phrase that people use when talking about romantic triangles. There’s even a movie along those lines, titled It’s complicated. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1230414/. So Neal’s “it’s compllicated” may actually not be THAT complex as some big conspiracy. But on this show…we never know!
“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
There is no reason to gloss over the negative aspects of Hook’s character, just to justify pairing him with Emma. If anything, it makes the story more complex and interesting.
@Surayya wrote:
No murder that we know of as fact before then & the only attempted murder he committed happened AFTER & ONLY to Rumple himself.
Watch Queen of Hearts. Hook kills one of Regina’s guards just to break into Belle’s cell. When Belle won’t tell him anything useful, he raises his hook as if about to kill her too, but then Regina intervenes. He then agrees to go kill Regina’s mother to help him get to Rumpel. It is easy to overlook, since to the audience Cora is “the Horror”
. ..and a guard is a nameless, minor character but it is still murder and he is willing to do it/did it.He may try to keep the collateral damage pretty low compared to other villains, but he is still willing to hurt a lot of people to get to Rumpel. He knocks out Charming to get his hook. He threatens to “dissect” Hopper, though he doesn’t actually cut him (nor free him!). He “borrowed” Aurora’s heart to get back on Cora’s good side. Then there’s what he did to Belle.
@Surayya wrote:
They guy knows how to use a gun, if he wanted Belle dead when he shot her, he’d have killed her- he wanted her to loose her memory & wounding her with the gun was the method he had at hand & so the method he used
It is really hard to say what his intent was with Belle at the town line. Just because you know how to use a gun doesn’t mean you’re a great shot in the dark. But even assuming his intent was to rob Belle of her memories, not kill her, that’s still pretty evil. His beef is with Rumpel, not Belle. He took everything away from her of who she was. Remember when Belle’s father Mo was going to take her memories from her?(Was that foreshadowing?It happened in the Hook centered episode The Crocodile.) Belle thought the action so horrible that she tells Mo that she never wants to see him again, that she can’t forgive him for it. Belle, the character who tries to see the good in everyone, cannot forgive her own father for trying to take her memories away. So I’d say causing a total memory loss is not a “minor misdeed”.
@Surayya wrote:
He hasn’t done 1/10th the bad/evil stuff Regina or Rumple has done (I doubt anyone…aside from Rumple can match Cora’s bad deeds to date), yet Hook seems to be taking the rap for his minor misdeeds, in the face of their real evil- people amaze me sometimes
There is a spectrum of evil. At one end you have Cora, for sure, but then you have characters like the Blind Witch, George/Spencer, Sydney Glass,Hook,Maleficient Jefferson, Jimminy’s parents and others I forget. I absolutely agree that Regina and Rumpel are in Cora’s leauge , but some fans view those two as having mitigating circumstances (Rumpel’s curse, and the manipulation of Regina by her mother and Rumpel). The point is though, you can’t judge Hook only against the worst villains in the show, then say well he’s not evil because he’s not THAT evil! Compare him to the others I mentioned, and, while I’m not sure where I’d rank him, I’d put him on the list.
And maybe in this show we should not talk of evil, but of whether someone is capable of redemption or not. Hook having a romantic story arc and redemption could be exactly the direction the writers have in mind, because they do give hints that he is more than a one note vengeance machine. Not that I find a character bent on revenge to be unappealing or distasteful–Inigyo in the Princess Bride was always a favorite of mine.
“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
Now I’m wondering if they are going to go exactly that route, that there was nothing more than a passing humiliation. It makes Cora all the more evil…like the story by Poe, The cask of Amontillado…someone who reacts out of anger and out of all proportion to the injury suffered, though you never know what exactly the original insult was. Similar really, to what Regina does to Snow, except we (mostly) know what happened between them.
“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
@Ziera117 wrote:
And…the family tree is messed up so much already
…I really don’t want Regina to be Rumple’s daughter. 
lolI’m doubtful that she would be, given the casting of Henry’s father King Xavier, and the father Prince Henry. It’s like they suggest her dark hair comes from her father’s side. But you never know with a show that has magic…
We have so far the smallest glimpse of the story between Cora and Rumpel, and as well Eva and Cora. We may never get the whole background on Eva and Cora, but I bet we will find out how Rumpel and Cora parted as enemies after being lovers. It almost doesn’t matter who ended their affair, either way, Cora ended up bitter and wicked–and in denial that she IS wicked. I wonder if somehow, in her mind, no matter what she does it can never be bad, because everything is justified because she is battling the “Dark One”.
“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
Mryill makes excellent points about a complicated, philosophical question. Bottom line is that civilized societies draw a distinction about the reasons people kill, and the methods they use.
They do kind of address the topic in the show though, in the scene where Snow and Charming talk a little about the difference between executing Regina (putting her on trial, and then in front of a firing squad), and assassinating her (when Charming stopped Snow from using an arrow in the woods).
Since the topic has come up before for them, I took Snow’s moral crisis moment to mean that she is willing to consider using methods that ordinarily, she would consider wrong, like that candle or other dark magic, or something else other than holding a trial and execution or waiting for the moment to defend herself, or an open declaration of war to remove an unjust, unfit ruler.Of course, I’m still trying to square this moment of ethics for Snow with her earlier treatment of Mulan. Sure, Mulan sort of forced the issue by saying Snow would have to kill her to stop her from delivering the compass, but it certainly seemed like Snow was just about to go there when Aurora appeared. And that’s another odd question, because we know Cora was controlling Aurora. Didn’t Cora WANT to see Snow’s heart blackened?
So maybe in FTL, some of the killings that are “justified” are not entirely in line with what we think they are here (and even in our world, people draw those lines differently, country to country and even in the USA at least, state to state). But they do have lines, and up til now, Snow and Charming didn’t want to cross them. Now she seems to be saying “well, maybe I should, because playing by the rules is getting me nowhere.”“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
