Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Crowned–yes!
The problem runs both ways. We all have our favorite characters, and its not really just about shipping. Some people enjoy discussion and debate, others want to just avoid a contrary thought–others see contrary thoughts even if they aren’t intended to be (how else do I understand someone saying I disagree, when I was agreeing with them?). I know some people really have the “I love my shipmates and will defend them” attitude–but I confess I don’t love my shipmates in that exclusive way, even have trouble with the term of declaring myself a shipper in full. I just sometimes am in the mood to talk to people who see the same things in the story, and I love that they can be silly with me in that same way. I stay out of chat if its a conversation that’s too much on a topic that I know my opinion would be too discordant to express. Sometimes I dive in but I’m trying to gauge who actually wants to hear different opinions and who doesn’t. Sometimes I just want to be silly and break tension. Fandom should be fun so we have to respect we may have different ideas of what that means.We are people, fans of the show, not representatives of our ships.
[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
It’s interesting how people look at it.
“They won’t kill the popular character”
“They won’t kill the character they just killed”
“They won’t kill off a true love relationship”
“It’s story driven”
“Its actor driven”
“Its fan driven”
I didn’t start watching for any specific character. I’m not going to stop watching for any specific character. I am going to stop if the writing is bad, which means to me, characters that are so inconsistent or unlikeable or plot events that feel as out of left field as my crack theory suggestions.
Maybe its a tragic death, not something the character saw coming, like Graham or Billy. Maybe its a noble attempt to save others. Maybe its inevitable due to the character’s continued push to pursue conflicting goals with other characters, like Cora. Story can be driven to kill ANY of these characters. The only one they ruled out is RC.
I think many of us filter who would it be by fan popularity. We aren’t expecting Game of Thrones, no one’s safe. We were expecting quite the opposite actually, and even more so after the lowered emotional stakes of a character that actually died being magically restored fully intact. (Blue). Seemingly that went against the laws of magic within the show. Did they plan a permanent death before that? Or is it a response to “fix” the danger level?
The genius with GoT is that the swirling points of view ensure that at some point you’ll end up having two different characters you were “rooting” for in some sense, come into a conflict knowing only one can truly be happy with the end result. Yet there are so many likable (or detestable!) characters that the loss or victory of one, no matter how tragic or fulfilling is offset by the ongoing struggles of the others.
The writers started this off with the Regina/Charming conflict, threw in Rumple and we had a triangle of sorts. Remember Emma’s line to Gold? Am I for or against you? Maybe diagonally. That gave season 1 that sense of brilliance of multi-part conflict unfolding.
Season 2 lacked this tight plotting. There were some deepening mysteries but the answers began to be less than amazing, and the loose plot ends began to pile up. We get to season 3, and I know some people were just so thrilled because certain plot things they’d wanted to see happen did on some level–but look at the larger story. They had to time jump in order to really set up the next conflict and it seems like more or less they’re going to say “Yeah ignore everything we did –whole new ballgame.” By merging the protagonists/antagonists into “one big happy family” more or less, they lost a good source of conflict amongst the main cast.
It’s not as interesting to bring in a new villain and its “our team” versus a disposable villain with goals that are wholly unsympathetic. I’ll watch it but to paraphrase Myrill’s goodbye post–its no longer must-see TV, just some casual entertainment to watch if I’m in the mood. If the new feel goes back to S1’s, maybe it will draw me back but I suppose I have to wait and see.
So it’s not do I lose a character I was rooting for–but why that happens, and how well does the story make that meaningful (or not).“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 had a 4 way tie according to the sorter. Emma, Neal, Belle and Rumple. I like Belle, but I would have picked Snow before her and Rumple.
I think it depends on who it is and how does the plot shift and characters change in their relationships to each other? Will I feel like rooting for them? Is it a death that conveniently avoids dealing with plot points so certain things can be erased from the story like GOAT and Tamara’s taser, never to be mentioned again? Will it leave plot holes and unanswered questions of why?
Mainly I started watching because I love fairytales in general, the idea of twists on them, and costume eye candy. I love the clothes and set design (and the cast is so easy on the eyes, aren’t they?). I came to these forums after searching for theories on who the curse was Whale? (Frankenstein….clever!)
“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 think when you think of the number of unexplained plot points still open and the number answered with a really lame reason–I am not holding my breath. They may as well start writing things like this:
Regina: Wicked, why are you doing this?
Wicked: For reasons.They came up with some pretty silly things and didn’t bother to explain how any of it happened. It’s like the Taser thing–the writers just want to have a magical doohickey they will and we all wonder what it means and they get upset we pick it apart. They’re not writing a deep story so I don’t think there will be explanations 🙁
“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
Us trying to guess who it is reminds me of Vizini in Princess Bride …its making my head dizzy. I just know whoever it is won’t make me happy to see the character go whichever it is.
“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 actually would like Esmerelda and tying in to Hunchback and gypsies as they mentioned them a few times. Ruth’s necklace for example.
Plus its the Aunt on Bewitched–a show of magic in a (well at the time) modern world. Goes great with my crack idea of Charming having a sister we never knew about who’s the witch.
“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
Mickstemp….I totally forgot about that line. That line is usually Peter’s, but here Peter was killed by the Crocodile. Does kind of stand to reason, that if this truly is Hook, it would have been planned all along. Actually, Hook’s the only character that I would agree was planned but he’s the one I see least likely due to fan popularity. So its confusing. Neal is the one that makes least sense from a story perspective to me–but the most from a “keep the ratings afloat, ahoy matey! The fans say ye walk the plank.” They’ve been saying it for awhile. https://twitter.com/AdamHorowitzLA/status/259082371905769472
“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
Matt’s right, we don’t know how the death fits into the story and what they had in mind in terms of a vision for the story to where it will fit and feel like a natural conclusion ….or not.
I get what you’re saying Matt, and said so too that they needed to raise emotional stakes after all the fake deaths–Henry, Archie,Blue, Neal, even sort of August, then Rumple, and came very close with Charming, Snow, Hook, Belle and Regina though they didn’t totally “die” …they need one about a character we are invested in emotionally to stick. Whatever “set-up” they need to make that happen can take place with the new storytelling they have in mind.
“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
Obviously people want to rule out certain characters or rule other ones in but we really cannot tell. Story-driven is Adam’s nicely vague could-mean-anything term, after all. Story could have driven the actor/actress away. It could have been “planned” since the actor said they’re fed up or planned since they hired the actor, or the last story camp when they got a new idea and new vision (just ask Red/Meghan Ory).
TVline poll would indicate that what fans expect is Neal despite that they just did a story about the effects on everyone if he were dead. I feel it is GOAT part 2, they’ll have some talking points about how they felt Neal’s death was “earned” in some way but really it was “have to please fans”. It seemed to me they scrapped plans with GOAT due to fans hissing about the taser, and it may have tied in to things for Neal they scrapped. Things to do with the Darlings, the home office and how he escaped that were just shunted to a coconut shaped plot hole.
Who knows but so many missed opportunities and I’m losing faith that the future dots we collect have anything to do with connecting back to the ones we already have.
“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, have they ever confirmed that Red leaving was not planned/anticipated until AFTER Ory said it in press release ? They like to claim they’ve changed less than they have so it can sound like they’re in control of their “vision”.
“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
