Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The show probably would have done better as a break filler. Or not. How Galavant will be doing this season will say nothing about how Once in Wonderland could have done, two very different shows.
The statement that they “wanted to build a night of empowered women” made me spill me breakfast coffee over the desk. That was their plan? Cute. Well, if they think so. But have they even realized that one of the big things about Grey’s was the ongoing story about a friendship between two women? And then compare that to Once and Once in Wonderland. Maybe there is something important missing on those? Maybe it is not all about romance for women? Whatever.
For me that was one of the reasons I gave up on the show after three episodes. It appeared to me as just another romance story of a good looking white straight woman, and making her head strong and adept is nowadays not that much of a new attraction. Doubt though that this lack of originality was what most people put off the show. There was potential in the friendship of Alice and the Knave, but it didn’t have that much of a grip, although there was a nice chemistry between the actors, and it was in theory not all about romance (but only in theory).
Remember there was some ranting about the CGI, some finding it distracting and some distractingly bad. It was actually something I found interesting at first about the show, the quirky colors of Wonderland were fitting IMO, the darker Steampunk style of the fictional Edwardian world of Alice were great, but it lacked story telling quality soon. It felt more like someone playing around childishly with colors and effects for the sake of being shiny and flashy and exiting than anything with thoughts. It’s funny that TV as a visual medium so often fails at visual story telling, mostly neglects it. It’s all about dialogue, and a number of shows could very well or maybe even better work as audio drama. It’s not about the props or costumes, it’s about using the visual as an element of story telling. For example how you frame a scene can do so much for mood, set up something for later, tell about the dynamics between the people in the scene, establish things you don’t need to say in words then. Same goes for colors, movement to name to more important elements every DP should know a lot about (and every screen writer should learn something about).
If they would have kept the story more simple maybe. But as in the mothershow they liked quick twists and “great” surprises (which so often are not surprising) to a degree that it got confusing for the more casual viewer IMO, and neglected coherent character and drama development.
[adrotate group="5"]¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
When I said she couldn’t outsmart the Dark One, it was only in the sense that in accepting she could no longer remove herself from having a child with Rumpel.
Why not? Nothing said she had to have a child with Rumple IMO. Besides there always had been means and with magic sure some more to avoid to have a child.
As far as we know the contract said, Cora owed Rumple her firstborn, in the sense of it would be Rumple’s, she would have to hand it over to him. There was no word of her having to have a child though. Rumple even told her, that he knew she would have a daughter (not sure what made him so sure that was her firstborn child though), so he probably never considered that he’d better make sure to note in the fine-print, that it was Cora’s obligation to have at least one child in a certain time. Cora wanted to marry royal, she quite sure would be trying to bear a child, to have a heir, why should Rumple worry about that little detail. Cora owed Rumple her firstborn, but she didn’t owe him to have a child. And Rumple didn’t seem to have set any due date, he was sure, Cora would have a child, and the contract said, she owed her firstborn to him.
When Rumple offered a change of the contract it was about only one thing, one detail, that the child wouldn’t be some “random” firstborn, but his child.
Sure, one can say, Cora still owed him, Rumple didn’t leave her out of the contract, no waiver, so Cora still was in Rumple’s debt – but what could he have done about making her pay? Force her or trick her into having his child or try to, but he could not be sure to get what he wanted.
In his hubris Rumple had told Cora, that he had seen her daughter would be important in the future, so she knew it was not some random deal, he was after them. He could kill her perhaps, but then there would have been no child (as far as he knew at that point) and she had to have a daughter. So Rumple had to bite his time and wait and find another way to get a grip on her daughter.
I probably spent too much time with politics, politicians, lawyers and discussing the fine-prints and subtleties of charters and laws as much as details of contracts and consumer protection.
For Cora there was nothing to lose when she said yes to the change. To me it is still open if it was all sincere, but she at least made it sound like she would now go with Rumple, call the royal wedding off, take revenge on the king for humiliating her by taking his heart (killing him?) and set of into a dark happy honeymoon with Rumple, sharing his isolation but also probably learning more magic and gaining a different kind of power, though in isolation and not as celebrated royal respected person. Having his child probably sounded not like any bad idea when her feelings where any sincere. And if not, why care, there were means to avoid having a child. Whatever way and intention Cora had that moment, the change Rumple made was no loss for her.
On Rumple’s side though I see some flaw in the logic, blinded fool.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
Not quite sure if I can follow your thinking, @schaendlich. It’s not like Cora ever really cared about Zelena, she probably gladly would have handed her to Rumple as price for becoming a royal, if the contract would have stayed unchanged. Cora was smart enough not to tell Rumple, that she already had a firstborn daughter, got her end of the deal and then probably would have let him know about it wishing him good luck finding her, while she would marry royal and be a good royal wife producing a firstborn for the prince without much of any headaches about Rumple’s price.
Think we should assume, that on Rumple’s side affection was involved for amending the contract they had, as a token of his interest in Cora, of his love, lust, saying, that the contract was only to be fulfilled when the two would have a child together. I don’t know if Cora played Rumple already at that point or seriously was thinking to go with him, either way Cora couldn’t lose saying yes to that change. If going with Rumple a child together would have been means to bond stronger anyway and she would have been there to raise it with him. If not going with him she didn’t need to worry much about him either, unless he would take her by force or trick her into bearing his child there would be not firstborn of her and Rumple. No, Cora was not out of the contract but whatever the outcome she could only win, love or royal status, riches in any case, whatever her heart yearned more for.
Rumple was a fool, and this is prove how little good his seer abilities did for him. If he foresaw a daughter of Cora would be the one to cast his curse, he certainly didn’t spot she had already a daughter when he met her. And while he normally liked to be on top of things not wording precisely that Cora owned him her first born daughter was already a bit of stupid risk to take at the at point, could he be really that sure her firstborn would be a daughter? And then this stupid amend, didn’t he already had an idea what it would take to cast the curse, so making it his and Cora’s child wouldn’t that be utterly stupid? What if the thing their daughter would have loved most were him? Or would he been such a jerk to raise his daughter with Cora fearing and hating him?
It’s even believable if accepting that Rumple was so intrigued by Cora that he lost sight for some things, so much that he was about to jeopardize his complicate plan to have a chance to reunite with his son. What a lovesick (or lustsick) fool. And his seer ability never did any good for him, even more of a fool or tragic “hero”.
Cora was the one on top the moment Rumple made the deal about her firstborn, the amend didn’t matter that much anymore. She outsmarted him pretty much one way or the other.
As long as we didn’t know about Zelena the story looked a bit different to us, but it makes even a bit more sense with Zelena, or makes Cora an even more intriguing villain, pretty much the only truly interesting one they had so far. (If ignoring the rather unnecessary stupid attempt to taint Eva a bit with her betraying Cora’s betrayal to Leopold). If taking the Enchanted Forest as a medieval world with regularly little power to women then some of Cora’s behavior was even not that of a genuinely evil character but could be seen as a questionable though comprehensible way to take good care of herself and her offspring, rational choices, using the means she as a woman had. Unfortunately they made her look more like a psychopath the way she reacted to her daughters, particular that she abandoned Zelena in the woods (was she hoping for some wolf pack to pick her up an raise her? She could at least have left her somewhere to be found by someone for sure)
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
I don’t think A&E necessarily shy away from exploring “heavy duty” problems on Once but they dress it up to keep it “family-friendly”. For example, Rumple and Regina’s relationship with magic is basically one of addiction. They go through the highs and lows of that addiction but at no point is it outright stated on the show that it is an addiction.
They could probably write Hook having an alcohol problem in the same way. They won’t throw the word “alcoholic” or “alcoholism” around but they’d plant the little signs there.
Making something “family friendly” is something different to me than what they are doing, showing on the show and displaying in interviews and on panels, especially A&E. They are playing things down, being all busy with their flashy toys while showing little sensitivity to sensitive issues. That is quite the opposite even IMO of what a family show should do. Not shy away but be clear about things without going into exploitive sensationalism and gruesome pictures. The show is mostly sadly as worse as some exploitive ones like GoT, just representing the opposite side of ignorance with being all playful and trite.
People don’t need to be physically addicted to abuse a substance – sadly common misunderstanding. There are different stages of addiction: Experimentation, regular use, abuse/risky behavior, dependency. In other words, particular if it comes to alcohol a lot more people have problems with it than most of us notice or acknowledge. I am not sure what they are doing though with Hook here. Is it for jokes, the pirate trope (they drink rum don’t they) or as character issue – I am not sure. It could make sense, that he began getting lost in alcohol at times to numb the pain of losing Milah, and it became a habit to hit the bottle once in a while, as much as taking a sip has become a ritual of reassurance, that he is a pirate and doesn’t care much anyway. To me there are not little signs, Hook is abusing alcohol – but I am not so sure if the writers actually share that view.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
1) Zelena: justifiably angry or unhinged whiner?
Neither. I found Zelana’s jealousy trip as justifiable or unjustifiable as Regina’s vengeance against Snow. Neither Regina nor Snow were responsible for the suffering, they were scapegoats, while the true culprits got away.
While the showrunners are not getting tired to babble, that evil isn’t born, it sure looks quite different by now on the show: There seem to run a legacy of psychopathy or some evil craziness in the female side of the Mills’ family (the men seem to vanish or turn into more or less drunken wimps). While with Regina at least nurture could play a role, she was raised by Cora, though her father seemed to be a nice, caring guy, there is nothing of that with Zelena. It’s the biggest problem I have with the character. She was abandoned by her mother for ignoble reasons, but then found by a couple, of which at least the woman seemed to be a nice and caring person, the guy maybe a bit fearful but not so bad either. It looked liked Zelena was raised by friendly people, who had no riches but never seemed to lack, she was maybe struggling with her magic, and her foster parents told her to never show it, or did all to hide it, but still doesn’t seem like Zelena had much of an unhappy childhood. I couldn’t buy that Zelena was going from naive country wallflower to jealous magic nerd and then sexy, sassy green revenger in more or less no time. Rumple has some toxic effect on the Mills’ women, has he. If they’d put Zelena more into a kind of Oliver Twist situation, found by a couple running an orphanage in bad old style, exploiting the kids as workforce – that could have explained Zelena as damaged goods a lot better. Besides they could have explored parallels to Emma, tie in her character in the season’s bad guest star story arc that way, and made the final episode so much more connected to the rest of the half season. They tried that with the premise of Dorothy and Oz, but it didn’t work well.
I could buy into Zelena’s jealousy towards Regina if changing the background story this tiny bit, Siblings can be terrible rivals and very unreasonable and destructive ones. It is soap operatic, but have seen it to some degree in real life as well.
I could get somewhat, that Zelena got obsessed with the idea to go back in time and change things, though I am not sure in which direction that should have gone. Never be abandoned by Cora? Regina never born? Zelena as Rumple’s puppet and Curse caster? Did she hope to get a family and home and love that way? Was it about family or about approval and career so to speak? Or was it just to destroy Regina’s happiness as a parallel to what Regina tried to do to Snow? Maybe a bit all of it and maybe even Zelena had no clear picture, what her goal was – I sure was wondering.
2) Do you think ONCE’s take on Oz/ The WWW was successful?
There was Oz in it? As I see it, they found the green Wicked Witch intriguing, but didn’t look to me like they had much of an idea what to make of Oz. Maybe they would have fared better to make it a spin-off mini series quite like Wonderland. Well, they still in theory could, but doubt after the rating disaster of Wonderland they will do it, and not with the task at hand to work with Frozen. (Seeing the potential of OUaT as it could have become the Star Trek franchise of this century, though think they blew that already, it could have been an idea, to start workshops for screenwriters at the beginning of a career, take the best of them, let them write under good supervision of seasoned writers and showrunner miniseries and expand the OUaT universe, and it doesn’t always have to be a primetime show, while helping to bring new people into business: yeah, I know the big networks are way too anxious too take such risks – as if they hadn’t their fingers in smaller networks as well).
No, Once’s take on Oz was rather a failure. When even I feel like I had to do too much thinking to find something of the story and mythology of Oz and not just marvel at some flashy props from that world… You know I love digging and thinking. But guess for many the flashy references where enough, who cares about story and meaning anyway. Not even the Wicked Witch made much sense to me, besides that this was the green season in a way (Neverland and Oz, somehow both have connections with the color green. Could be something to give every season a color theme – nah, too ambitious for this show.)
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
She was very awesome on Fringe (I was reminded of Emma on so many levels man I kid you not.)
Rewatched last night Fringe episodes with Georgina – and liked a lot more how they handled the mother-daughter-relationship there in the short time they had. Could feel the mix of emotions on both sides, joy, insecurity, admiration and emotional scars.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
Another Aussie on the show. Georgina Haig was good as “Etta” Bishop on Fringe, liked what she made of that character. Nice choice.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
I am well aware of definitions of symbol in literature, fiction: an object, thing, place, sometimes an event or even a person representing something more or something other than itself, an abstract idea or concept.
But I don’t agree or see Bae/Neal representing something more or other than himself and I highly doubt he was even meant to do that. None of the characters represents one or the other, good or evil, they are struggling with the spectrum of good and evil inside their personalities. I don’t know if the writers believe in the concepts of pure good or pure evil or not, but they certainly have created a fictional universe with shades and ambiguity, turning rather simple and somewhat symbolic figures from fairy tales and other sorts of fiction into complex, ambiguous characters with individuals stories and personalities. That is one of the charms of OUaT, or was, or still is in a way. Would say eventually they de-symbolize iconic and symbolic figures of fiction.
Besides that I disagree with you, I don’t see that Bae became evil in the end.
Neal AND Emma expected Gold to have a loophole. they “knew” that separating him from Gold would mean death, BUT they also *expected* that the source of all magical solutions would provide one here too.
Expected? Maybe they hoped for something, but I didn’t understood their questions at Rumple as expectations. But unless they were some naive dimwits they were seeing the possibility that Rumple might not have a solution. If turned evil Neal would have tried to stay regardless what costs, made a deal with Zelena (she tempted Rumple with going back in time to undo things, didn’t she) and not ask Emma to separate him and his father unless they’d have found a way to both stay alive. He would not have risked to finally lose his life.
oh,and of course he died for “naught” who was saved because of him? not even his father.
Many might agree with you, I don’t. We, the audience knew all the time who Zelena was, though we were somewhat in the dark of what she was up to. The characters had lost their memories of the year in the EF, they didn’t remember who Zelena was, to them she was a person they just met, one of some peasants who the first time had stayed behind in the EF (like Robin did as well). There might have been some signs that particular Snow should have been a tad less trustful with her, and Emma’s bond-person senses and experiences should have tinkled, but they couldn’t know that Zelena was the one with the big bad plan. We might think, that it should have been easy for the characters to figure things out, but we weren’t exactly seeing things through their eyes, we were knowing more than they did. Even if they maybe could have figured out a little earlier (flying monkeys!) that the Wicked Witch was involved, they still wouldn’t have known that Zelena was her – that was the information Rumple was able to give them. Tiny plothole why Rumple could remember but not Neal, but whatever, someone had to give them the information. And possible Neal saved only Regina’s life, because Zelena could have cast the Dark Curse as well, nearly everything could have played out the same way, but as well Emma might never haven been born nor Henry. Who can tell what Zelena would have done and caused if she had fully succeeded with her plan?
While Neal was still a part of Rumple it seemed like he was disturbing Zelena’s control over the Dark One, and afterwards Rumple filled with the thought of revenge quite sure fought as much as he could what Zelena forced him to do. Think that delayed Zelana somewhat, precious time for the rest to try to find a way to regain their memories and get an idea, what to do.
Did Neal safe his father? Probably not his soul, but for the time being his life. Belle probably is thankful at the moment for Rumple being alive.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
Bae was the symbol of GOOD in this show. just pure untainted goodness like that of child.. pure light, pure innocence. anything we ever saw him do was just innocent and good, like with the darlings and making that little deal with his father.
he was SUPPOSED to be the purer younger, more innocent mirror image of Snow. it was supposed to counter the Symbol Of Evil that Rumple became when he took the darkone’s powers. it was supposed to *mean* something to the overall theme of this show. (y’know, the symbol-of-all-that-is-evil protecting the-symbol-of-all-that-is-good)
but then in 315, Neal suddenly became a villain and died for nothing and for no one.
what is it that the story demanded here? was Neal/Fire too good? did he need that spot of darkness, like Snow had, to make him “three dimensional”?
were they planning to have him die and then brought back from the past by Rumple, so that Rumple would have a renewed goal? but why make him the villain? he definitely did NOT die a hero. far far from it.Somehow doubt that it ever was the intention of A&E to make Bae “the symbol of good”. In the Once universe no one is pure good or pure evil, there are many shades in between. At least I don’t see any character so far on the show being purely one or the other. All the more or less good characters did questionable things, while all the more or less bad guys not only are not born evil but as well in between did occasionally acts of some sort of kindness, mostly out of selfish reasons or with some other plans in mind, but still. Why should Bae be any exception?
Complex, strong, interesting characters are never just one or the other, they might be more on one side of the spectrum of good or bad, but they struggle always with the other side – and not in the form of some outer foe but in the form of their own desires, hopes, wishes, fears, emotions, reactions and behavior. Outer foes only deliver the trigger, they bring it out into the open, but the main struggle is inside of the characters. The greatest challenge for us humans are our very own selves. All great art is about that.
In drama the innocent either die early or they lose their innocence. Sometimes both. They are tempted, they fail, they go back on the right way. Classical quest. Otherwise innocent are only plot devices, characters to drive the story of main characters.
And I am curious: What made Neal a villain in episode 315? Because I never saw Neal as villain, not in that episode, not in any other. He did wrong things, he wronged and hurt Emma, betrayed her,
it was in the grey area to use Roland as bait for the shadow, and it was questionable that he went to retrieve the Dark One, trying to find by all means a way to be with his son Henry.Maybe, if Neal would have taken in the powers of the Dark One like his father did, and then would have done whatever it takes, including destroying and taking lives of other people like his father did, then Neal would have turned into a villain. But that was not what happened, was it?
What Neal did was rash, not thought through, he didn’t stop to find out what the price would be for retrieving the Dark One, but he didn’t care about prices for magic before that much either, he was willing to pay any if he thought it was worth it. It was not that well written maybe, but sure he was not written as villain. It’s not like he sacrificed for example Belle to retrieve the Dark One, he paid with his own life for it. Neal probably didn’t care that unleashing the Dark One again could have dire consequences for many, he didn’t know at that point how much of his father would still be in him, part of him, he had not even the knife as insurance of control, could only speculate it would come with the Dark One. All in all a very dumb move but nothing villainous.
Then Neal insisted that Emma would use her powers to separate him and his father, knowing it would mean finally his death, but he wanted her to do it, assuming his father was more important to stop Zelena and safe his family, Emma and Henry.
Was it for naught? Not from the view of the writers, but I agree, that they didn’t do a good job conveying that. Many are disappointed and some angry with what the writers did here. They didn’t make us walk in the shoes of the characters, which probably would have been better, we knew all the time Zelena was the threat and to us it looked like it should have been simple for the characters to figure that out, no need for Rumple to do tell them. Neither seemed there to be any real purpose for Rumple in the end to defeat Zelena. So what was kinda left is that one act of Neal sending a note and the potion to Hook to let him get Emma to safe her family. The big mistake the writers then though made was to not let Emma do exactly that but let Regina take over in the end (can see reasons why, but still call it the wrong choice).
So it looks to many like Neal’s sacrifice was for nothing. Can understand that. I believe A&E that that was not their intention, but the problem is, many in the audience ended up seeing something different on screen, there is a large gap between intentions and reception if it comes to Neal.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
@obisgirl Will be interesting to read. Although I am a bit cautious with color theory when it comes to costume colors on screen, well colors of anything on screen, contrast, lighting do a play a role as well not to mention what technology is available. When they started back in the days with color on film, Technicolor had some say on the set about costumes simply based on what they deemed has colorful harmonic look. The lead characters had to stand out in color, so their costumes were often brighter and more detailed, showing contrast to those of supporting and even more so background cast. In The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) it’s interesting to see how the costume colors of the two lead characters, Robin and Marian reflect how their feelings develop for each other, how they become closer, they’re more and more showing the same colors in their costumes. So yes, colors of costume can be used to reflect on emotions of the characters or to trigger emotions in the audience about characters, it might though not be always according to symbolic theories with their specific meaning for specific colors, it’s sometimes more about immediate, rather simple visual effects on screen.
Storybrooke costume I think reflect quite nicely how out of time the town has been, how out of our world the town still is. So they are not showing the newest real life fashion trend. Without much of a deeper meaning besides that the town came into this world early 80’s everything including the wardrobe had a touch of neat old 80’s fashion. Golly, Ruby’s look was so 80’s, terrible, great, it was like being dropped into Back Into the Future or Footloose, the times of Madonna, Cindy Lauper, Boy George (yes, I am old enough to have gone through these fashion faux pas myself, what were we thinking…). If you want to get an idea what more elegant or noble people were wearing in the 80’s search for Princess Di pictures (if you see those you will understand Snow’s choices better). For Regina take a look at “the beast” Alexis Colby (Dynasty).
I also loved Emma’s S1 clothing – simple, functional, very in character. I loved how Emma could take a simple jeans and t shirt and still look incredibly feminine. Now it’s almost like the clothes wear Emma…like in Kansas. Emma goes to the WW’s house, knowing there’s a good chance for a fight….in a pencil skirt? Who does that?? It’s cute but it’s not really the best kick-hiney attire.
Agree. I know some swear it’s no problem to run fast in high-heels or stilettos, it’s sure not impossible, but try it on muddy grass and soft forest ground. Good luck with fighting in anything constraining movements. Frankly even a tight jeans is not such a good choice, unless it’s stretch. Pencil skirt can work though, as long as you don’t worry about eventually showing your knickers that is.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
