[Myril]

Of course it was a betrayal, and both parties know it–as do the fans. Just because, for example, I am an ardent supporter of Nealfire doesn’t mean I don’t recognize that he really hurt Emma. The story is about coming back from that. But there is BETRAYAL and then there is betrayal. What Neal did was, ultimately, for the greater good. And it hurt Emma and it hurt Neal and it hurt Henry and it sucks. But he owned up to it, and she forgave him. He can justify it, but he doesn’t excuse the hurt he caused. He gave an actual apology. Snow and Charming don’t even apologize to Emma for sending her through the wardrobe, even though it was for the greater good.

There are people questioning if it can be called a betrayal. People have different definitions of betrayal, to some doing it out of (alleged) non-selfish reasons, with good reasons, because destiny has to unfold, because there is a greater good, means it can’t be called a betrayal. Well, I do call it betrayal, you RG do as well, regardless what good reasons someone might have had. To me it looks like some have a problem to forgive a person if they ever do something bad, at least it has to have a meaning, a purpose, otherwise no forgiveness. And I see that differently, I don’t exclude forgiveness even if someone committed a terrible crime. The true challenge of forgiving is not, to forgive what we can make to us in some way acceptable, but to forgive the unacceptable.

I have a general problem with anything being claimed to be destiny or for the greater good or whatever higher purpose and powers. So, no @TheWatcher , we are not on the same side here, but obviously I didn’t made my points clear. Emma felt the betrayal, was the victim of it, but I judge it as betrayal as well, Neal abandoned Emma and accepted the consequences of her being arrested and sentenced for possession of stolen property, he might not have called police, but he still listened to August and stayed away even when he knew she was arrested. Neal left Emma alone, guessing even she might not do as good as August probably made it sound like, facing some huge magical challenge, and he somehow convinced himself, it’s for her good, without ever giving Emma a chance to decide that for herself. We don’t know what August told Neal, maybe it included telling, if Neal stays he would take away from her any chance to meet her birth parents, to connect with them, because that I can picture as something Bae would feel for and identify with, but destiny, the greater good? That is what his father likes to blame for things happening, that means deflecting your own responsibilities for things happening when you clearly are responsible, that means trying to talk yourself out of a dilemma, that doing good for one side can often enough mean doing not good or bad for others. Being happy with Emma (and Henry) would have meant eventually to abandon the people in Storybrooke in their misery of a blurred existence. No, it wouldn’t have been selfish, because it was as well Emma’s happiness (and Henry’s, but he didn’t know that at that point), not just his own wishes. Was their no other way? Would Emma have been not open to help people? Did she needed to be tricked into it by leaving her totally in the dark about everything, her identity, her parents, her task? It might have been more of a challenge for Neal to convince Emma of fairy tales being real and she being the one to break the curse, but he listened to that notorious pretender and liar August and let Emma go through tough times so that eventually, hopefully, she would do the right thing for the people in Storybrooke in the right moment. Destiny is IMO a sorry excuse for hurting Emma, and I do hope that this was not the only reason Neal had for himself to listen to August and do what he suggested. I am giving Neal the benefit of doubt here, and I might be wrong about it, assuming he had a mix of reasons, a good one and others not so good ones, but if he accepted it as just something for the greater good, well, than he was a broken man. He probably was, but that doesn’t make him a hero or a good guy at that moment, he then was a broken man bowing to the excuse of destiny, giving into the demand that he has to shut up and stop asking questions, sit back and only hope for the best instead of actively trying for the best. He let himself and worse Emma be made passive puppets of whatever powers (people) where following their own agendas, there is nothing good or even heroic about that.

Claiming it was destiny or for the greater good makes me only lose respect for Neal. If he was bowing to that, if that was his main argument to abandon Emma, honestly, I think he lacks nearly as much spine as his father does. No, his father Rumple would have more spine even, because despite his drivel about destiny he still meddled with things and didn’t sit back just waiting and hoping.

Different though from others, even if he might have been so broken to use destiny as excuse, that doesn’t make it harder or impossible in my eyes to come back from that. He could have been a total jerk and coward at that moment, but if he truly meant what he said, recognized Emma’s suffering and that his decision was a big part of making her suffer, and wrong doing, if his apology had a meaning, then I say he still had some integrity or regained it. That is why I say it is not that important, that what Neal did was meant to happen or for any greater good, it is him taking responsibility for his doings and recognizing it had negative repercussions for Emma, regardless that in the end, over a decade later, things turned out more or less fine for her. His sincere apology is what redeems him in my eyes and was a step in making it possible, that he and Emma could have build a new relationship of whatever kind.

Problem is, most jerks never do that step, they stick to their selfishness or gutlessness, and whatever apology they utter, it is not a tiny bit recognizing the pain of the other only their pain to act bad, their suffering and desperation, it’s still all about them and their pain to have done whatever (tip to everyone: don’t drivel about your pain when apologizing to someone, it’s about them, not you, acknowledge their feelings and put your own on the backseat). Many had a problem with Neal being even considered to be still a proper fit for Emma, and I can understand them, it was easy to forget that scene on the beach in the penultimate episode of season 2 (which meany choose to forget). And the scene can be read differently, Neal talked a bit too much about himself, his pain, instead of simply admitting he caused Emma pain, it had some self-pity, but I nevertheless take that as sincere recognition that he did Emma wrong. I like to give people more than one second chance even (yup, I am such a fool like Snow, but different from her I count on being proven wrong most of the time, so prepare for the worst). I took Neal’s apology in the sum as sincere.

The biggest problem I had with what Neal did was, he never talked to Emma, as everybody else he denied her a chance to decide for herself.

For the record here: I do see a lack of recognition of Emma’s sufferings and pain on the side of particular her mother, on the side of Snow. It’s one of their major problems.

Honestly, a lot of people go into defensive if it comes to Neal and unnecessarily though. Well, unnecessarily so from my point of view, but I don’t believe in eternal damnation or the need of extended long trial to earn redemption. People have always reasons for what they do, if they’re good or bad is more often a judgement call then fact based reasoning, because they’re reasons for both sides (or more, if there are more), but people make a call to do one or the other thing. And we sometimes have a poor judgment, and we make mistakes. And sometimes it turns out it was despite all the pain worth it, and on the longer run what follows turns out fine. Or it happens, that we meant good and seemed to do the good, but it turns out to have bad repercussions despite what we hoped. The thing IMO is to accept we can mess up, we do mess up up, and not to try to sugercoat it with meaning or even the cozy feeling of some alleged greater good (greater good for who?). Everything we do has meaning, but not always is the meaning the one we would like it to have.

@WickedRegal No, not every Oncer hated Tamara, I didn’t, but one could question if I am still an Oncer anyway, so you still could be right with your assumption. I “only” disliked what they made of the character and the whole story at this point of the show. I was not the least bit emotional invested though in Tamara to have any feelings of hate for the character, nor did I care enough about Neal.

Then the interesting question I’d like to ask this thread becomes would you rather Neal had died completely the way he did or have him live in a de-aged form? Strictly has to be one or the other, so nobody can just go “neither, have Neal continue to live the way he was”, because of course that would be the preferred answer. I mean for one with the de-aging route, he would technically still be alive, but would any of you rather it be a choice of either fully grown Neal or no Bae/Neal at all? Sounds like a tough choice, because both have their disadvantages.

As being one who is fine with Neal being dead, story telling wise I’d say it would be worse, I can’t imagine a story version making it the better option.

Ethically though: It’s never wrong to safe a live.

[Myril]

Coming a little late to the party, but please bear with me if picking up a few things from earlier before getting to the newer questions raised.

Some might not like my views, but as I see it Bae/ Neal was a supporting character, supporting the story arc of primarily Rumple and then in the appearance as Neal as well of Emma. Having a contract as regular doesn’t exclude being “just” a supporting character. Don’t get me wrong, not saying he was unimportant, but Bae’s/Neal’s story was not important in itself on the show, as much as his own story and character might be interesting, it was important in connection with the main characters. Bae was the motivator for Rumple’s actions, a key to understand Rumple’s emotional world and mind. As well he became a key to understand a part of Emma’s emotional world. He was fleshed out as character as much as it was needed for Rumple’s and Emma’s story arc, well, mainly for Rumple’s, think the writers failed a bit making his part in Emma’s story arc as plausible.

I think they did a fairly decent job with Bae’s/Neal’s role in Rumple’s story arc be it back in the fairy backs or in present time. Different from many I don’t think that Neal acted OOC when he went to retrieve the Dark One, and eventually by it as well his father, to get a chance to get back to his son Henry, quite the opposite. There was finally something of the Bae as we’ve met him in the fairy backs, when he called for the Blue Fairy for help and took the bean to change things for him and his father, when in London he jumped and let the shadow take him instead of Michael (was it Michael?), even when he used Roland to catch a ride with the shadow again to reunite with his son and family. Bae had a certain confidence, he was not a guy to sit around and wait for destiny to happen but someone taking matters, fate in his own hands. He was not seeing magic as something someone should ever use on a daily basis or ever trust much, he saw the temptations of its powers first hand in his father, and was hating magic for that, but he wasn’t shy to use magic as a more or less last resort.

Using magic as last resort was his tragic flaw. While in a way opposed to magic and trying to stay away from it because it had estranged his father, Bae/Neal used magic as well – and it mostly ended not good for him and others, causing more trouble. If he hadn’t used the bean, although quite sure Bae is not to blame for his father’s failure to let go, Bae’s intention were good, even smart, but tragically it turned into something he certainly didn’t want to happen: Instead of getting his father back he fully lost him for a long time. Worse, Rumple turned worlds up side down in the attempt to reunite with Bae, did probably more bad and evil stuff than he would have just to protect Neal, many people suffered for creating the conditions for the Dark Curse to be cast and casting it. If Neal hadn’t gone so recklessly to retrieve the Dark One, becoming easy prey for Zelena’s trap, nothing that followed might have had happened the way it did, they maybe would have find a way to stop Zelena in the EF, and then looked for a way to reconnect with Emma against all odds, but could have been some less suffering and at least one death less.

Could have seen Neal going more and more to the dark side trying to bridge the worlds as his father did before trying to reunite with him, without bringing Rumple back, maybe Neal finding a way to take the powers of the Dark One even, taking over his place. But, no matter if I like it or not (I don’t, but more because I want more women centric story and could go very well in one show without much of a male main character for a change) Rumple is a main character and Neal was only supporting his story.

Having Neal though around, more or less happy fathering his own child while sorting the books in the library with Belle or whatever wouldn’t have offered much of a drive for Rumple’s character. To have something to drive Rumple in the upcoming season(s) it was either Belle or Neal IMO, they had to do something to keep Rumple on the edge, something to keep him struggling with destiny and the means dark magic powers offer him. They could have dragged things longer maybe, going more the conflict between father and son road, for another season maybe, Neal not trusting Rumple to not abuse magic and even hurting his family, Rumple insisting he wants to only protect him and everyone, but Rumple is a tragic character (no, I don’t see him having a happy ending). Usually one has to up the odds a bit with every new level of the story, otherwise you end up with something as mediocre as the Zelena story arc, separating Neal and Rumple by putting them in different places was worn out. Another tragic loss was for me on the walls at the beginning of season 3. But YMMV.

I have no problem with that they made Neal an important person in Emma’s life as well, as a true love and the father of her son. But as many I have a problem with the situation in Phoenix (episode Tallahassee), how Neal’s betrayal of Emma was executed, it’s plausibility was hard to follow, and Neal’s first reactions in New York and the whole thing with Tamara. In these story parts Neal was mostly out of character in my view, or it was demanding a lot more to make it plausible than they ever delivered on screen.

Destiny? Oh please. Bae didn’t seem to be anyone bowing much to whatever destiny was saying, he took matters in his hands. Right, Neal blabbers something about destiny later in the pub in New York talking to Emma, but he sounded like a broken man to me at this point, like someone who had given up. Learning he had a son, then even more so meeting him in a person was though a game changer for this broken man, rekindling something in him.

I find it interesting, how some struggle to call it a betrayal what happened in Phoenix, from Emma’s point of view in that moment and years later it certainly was. And from how Neal reacted on screen don’t think that even Neal saw it differently, he betrayed her, left her alone without any word, explanation, for whatever his reasons were at the time, it still was a betrayal, he messed up, he hurt Emma, and was sorry about it later. He wasn’t there as they had agreed on. He might not have called police on her himself, what leaves August as the one who did it, but he left Emma, without any explanation and all of a sudden. Maybe Neal’s betrayal can be justified, as that it was necessary to give Emma a chance to reunite with her parents, find her family and home, probably what August used as argument, but it still is a betrayal. And that is absolutely regardless of Emma being pregnant, that doesn’t matter, Neal didn’t know that, and it’s rather moot to speculate if he would have left even then.

I honestly don’t get, why it seems to be so important to many that what Neal did to Emma was for her sake or an act even of loving her. No, I do get it, it’s about integrity, of being the good guy, but I have a different view on integrity, on what makes people good guys. I have a lot more respect for people making mistakes when they own them, not trying to make it ever look good but accept it was messed up, and showing they learned something from it. I find the always reasonable acting, always doing the right things people mostly annoying or at best only boring, besides they only exist in fiction or in their own minds. We make mistakes, that is human, we mess things up, we hurt people, the question is to me, if someone can accept they do or did it and as such. Good guys are IMO not the good guys when they always do good, no one can, but because they take responsibility no matter what, they don’t even try to blame someone else, destiny, circumstances, bad luck, whatever, they own their actions, bad as much their good deeds, and even take responsibility if they’re not solely responsible. Something went wrong, they had a hand in it, they accept that, and then regardless what it might cost themselves try to do their best to do as much as they can to change what follows to something better for as many involved as any possible.

Betrayal is sure something hard to overcome in matters of a romance or friendship, but it’s not impossible to build new trust. Overcoming betrayal is more of an epic story than blind love.

I am well aware that I have quite a minority view on this forum. Wouldn’t go so far to say, Neal’s death was necessary for the story, nothing is necessary for any story, but it makes things interesting with Rumple. It’s not some foe from the outside teasing him, it’s his own personality and inner struggles being pushed again by this tragic lost. He has dark powers, and though he might cite again and again the price thing, belief in destiny, while fighting it all the time, will he truly be able to let go and accept Neal’s sacrifice for his family? I am not so sure about that. Yes, magic has rules, but that doesn’t mean one can’t try to break them, it was shown with Zelena and with Jafar on Wonderland.

So, no, I don’t bother to even picture Neal in season 4. I found the Zelena set up not well executed, found it unnecessary and even taking something away from Neal as a character to make it more or less a trap of Zelena Neal walked into, but I am okay with his death. I am not rejoicing but neither do I mourn him, because I can see merits for the drama of Rumple in it, and yes, I care more about a good drama than a happy ending, for any character.

Not sure what the showrunners will make of it. They mostly go into the right direction, but then turn a firework more into a flower shower or take the express lift up instead of the slower lift stopping every floor, making it possible to explore a building more in detail. They have a bad habit of rushing through emotional things for the sake of the big bad of the season adventure plot or the newest action figure toy character. Might happen as well to the repercussions of Neal’s death, it might not last long, or they rush through it, too fast for many to follow. Will see.

¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯

[Myril]

Or they could go for a more diverse couple for a change, instead of telling the same story with nearly the same pretty faces over and over again, and establish a friendship of whatever kind with Red for example 😉

Of course Disney is to get as much out of Frozen as possible, it’s their function. They’re not a charity organisation or some friendly patron of arts trying to foster their societal status, it’s business. One of the things Disney is good at is crossing over business segments, from movie to stage to parks to TV screen to games and interactive internet, as the article so nicely notes. That doesn’t mean, that they jump instantly if some writers come along shouting, we want to tie in one of the big movie product to this TV product, they want to see a convincing concept. Even Joss Whedon had to present a good concept for Shield and he is a bigger number in business than A&E. Two young men liking to play in Disney’s toy shop have to convince the cashier that them playing around with that toy will make money and not just cost money.

Otherwise this article is stating the obvious, though rather without giving much information. Yes the cable networks make more for Disney, but it includes ESPN, that is sports!sports!sports!, and scripted primetime broadcast hardly can be compared with that. Would have been nice to say what that useless chart is about (change income this year’s quarter compared to past year), but charts and numbers make everything look serious business even if no one cares what they’re useful for or saying. That Frozen was a big box office hit and helped to boost income of the movie segment doesn’t mean that it automatically will translate into a success on TV. They mention Shield – it was one of the highest anticipated shows past fall, boosted by campaign (costing some money I’m sure) and had an impressive audience in the pilot, but then had one of the worst drops in audience number right after the pilot. I still have no clue, who Shield wants as audience, after a whole season (no clarity about that could be bad for selling ad time, is it for all 4 quadrant, family or more adolescent, comics fans or trying to bring in new audience into the Marvel world? Maybe they do want it all but they haven’t really found a consistent tone for the show). The show made not much sense for 2/3 of its season until they finally go make the big reveal and game changer and connect everything with the new Captain America movie. Enjoyed that connection, but what were the first 15 episodes there for? Not such a good example of tieing TV and movie worlds.

Quite sure Frozen doesn’t need OUaT, though maybe OUaT might need Frozen. Disney’s secret TV Weapon? Whatever.

@Gaultheria Possible there were inspirations, but doubt they developed with OUaT in mind.

They were on and off developing a Snow Queen concept for years. Jennifer Lee said in interviews, that the idea of an act of true love and looking at true love in a different way was already there when she got on board in March 2012. It was not coming from her, but still possible there was inspiration from OUaT, the first season was airing at that time.

But different from OUaT’s take in Frozen it is an act of true love not a kiss.

The true love kiss is an older take of Disney on fairy tales. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs from 1937 changes the Grimm Brother’s version significantly in this point, and lets a kiss of the prince break the curse instead of servants stumbling with the coffin and thus causing the piece of apple stuck in Snow White’s throat to dislodge. True love’s kiss is nothing innovative of OUaT, the opposite, it is more an old Disney style, quite uncreative take at the power of (true) love. Frozen is more progressive in that than OUaT.

¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯

[Myril]

Did the test because noted that the buttons where inserting html code tags, like for inversive. BBCode is using different tags, like “[ i ]”, and is often used in forums, to restrict coding with html tags for security reason. Just a guess the buttons are not working properly because of html restriction, so was curious to see what the buttons do.

¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯

[Myril]

Has been noted, that the WYSIWG editor buttons when in visual mode are not working

testing it

inversive

bold

align right

1. number one
2. number two
3. number three list

and a quote

 

 

 

now manual BBCode in text mode:

inversive

bold

right

underline
strike thru

number one

number two

buttons in text mode

inversive
bold

strike thru

[Myril]

I would like Regina to be what some see in her already, but that is not what I see on screen, there I see a different Regina, one I think is not interesting and a mediocre version of what could be.

If the writers had the intention to not just make it look like the light powers were thrown like some undeserved gift at Regina they pretty much failed to convey that. I didn’t see it. Problem: They assume that just because someone is bloodrelated there is some sort of magic special connection, or why else should Regina have cared the least bit about Zelena? Why should she fear to lose someone she never really had nor knew? Common societal image, blood is thicker than blabla. Which is rather funny to insist on seeing that Regina is not bloodrelated to Henry and still it is said he is all she cares about. She cares about Henry because she has build a connection with him.

Regina only saved the day because the others were made weak, Snow made stupid pregnancy brain (another stupid cliche), Charming brave knight but that is never enough to stop an evil witch, Hook was love puppy, and conveniently Emma had to give up her powers for love, while Regina was allowed to gain additionally powers through love. The character earned nothing, she was the lucky fool turned hero because someone had to stop the bad lady in the end. If she’d cared about Zelena because of seeing a variation of what was done to herself in her, felt pity for her regardless that she was her sister, and felt awful because she nevertheless had to stop Zelena by any means, maybe that could have been called progress – but that is not what I saw happening in this second half of the season.

As I said, we saw a glimpse of furious great Evil Queen in Neverland, when she was fighting Pan. But again the others were made look like stumbling fools most of the time, until all of a sudden, poof, in a team effort they succeeded in Neverland and even were able to leave together, but it was easy for Regina to shine, there was not much of a serious competition. Including Rumple, who turned into a whimpering boy in a man’s body for most of the time, which made even sense, different from what they did to other characters, but the execution was measly and only carried by Carlyle’s acting.

And then Regina, who raised Henry, doesn’t noticed at all the changes in the boy? It would have been the chance for the writers to show, how well Regina might know her son, instead they pretty much proved the opposite

I don’t mind, that they let Regina play hero, I mind how they do it, it’s more drama queen than a character owning herself. I saw great potential in the character, but they’ve made her some mushy drama queen playing the hero of the day. I never disliked the character, there was great potential in it, but I dislike what has been made of the character.

It is telling IMO, that so many instantly assumed, that Regina will now go after Emma after Emma destroyed her happiness nearly like Snow did so many years back (at least this time the lover is not dead, yet). Does that show that people have a feeling that Regina changed, that there is development, grow in the character? No, obviously people jump to a different conclusion. Either that is because the audience is narrow-minded or the writers failed to communicate changes they think Regina has made. The problem is not, what the character could be, but, as with all other characters, what they make plausible and visible on screen. That people expect the more negative reaction of Regina might be a mix of both, people sticking to prejudices and failure of the showmakers to transport their ideas of the story in the story. The Queen you want to see is a nice idea I could live with, but she is not there IMO.

I loved Xena, who I think did a lot more evil evil things in her life than Regina did so far and without any childhood traumata as cheap excuse. In that Regina reminds more of Callisto, who was a great character until they came up with the stupid Eve story arc. Even turning Callisto into an Angel was something I could live with, but not anymore with what followed. The difference IMO is, that Xena and Callisto, even despite her sob childhood story, both owned their evilness and themselves. I don’t see that with Regina. There are glimpses, and maybe they think she is like these characters, but then she is again more Drama than Evil Queen.

It is like they invited us to a fireworks show but then deliver a flower show, or at least I understood the invitation as one to a firework, maybe I misunderstood. But doesn’t change that instead of fireworks were getting a flower shower. Could be nice to, but it is something different.

¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯

[Myril]

Regina is responsible for her own doings, no doubt there, but that doesn’t reduce the evil Rumple did to her either. Rumple needed Regina desperate, without (true) love, without support system, any friends, anything that could stop her eventually from casting the Dark Curse, only her father was left as source of love and someone to love, an ingredient needed to cast the curse. Rumple intervened in Regina’s life whenever he had to to keep her on track of her own damnation. He manipulated Jefferson and Frankenstein to give her hope to only take the hope away and make her more hurt and desperate. Right, Rumple never asked her to kill the villagers or Graham (but the unicorn, so who knows what else he would have done or did to teach her what she needed to be his tool), but Rumple created the monster, that had all the means and no scruple to kill. He came and reminded her of the Dark Curse, after he had made sure, that Regina couldn’t attack Snowings in the Enchanted Forest. It was not just a spark, it was more, he kept the fire burning, and then tossed his tool away when she had fulfilled her purpose for him, only kept by his promise to Belle from killing her, though letting the Wrath take her soul would have been probably worse of a fate than death.

If Regina though had any kind of healthy self-esteem and more of a brain, she would at least after the curse have realized, who had manipulated her and everybody else and regretted and stopped blaming and hurting Snowings and others. She would have given it thought, how to make the one truly responsible for her sufferings pay and stopped him from doing more, protect her son from his grandfather. That could have been an Evil Queen to enjoy watching, not the whiny spineless wreck of an abused woman they turned her into. We saw a glimpse of what could have been when Regina fought Pan.

Instead they serve us Regina as some undeserved hero, let her have light powers without her having to work for it. Oh, nice, she experienced true love with Henry, what a gift, but not an ounce of effort on her side, Henry just loves her regardless. Henry the cardboard version of a child, no depth there, no depth of emotions to work with on either side. The writers let Regina shine without her having to work for it – and that is what some people find by now annoying. Turning meanwhile Snow into Regina’s cheerleader while Snow turns her back on her daughter is not helping Regina’s cause.

Regina could have been great and furious, evil in her pursue of taking revenge on Rumple, that could have been a story arc over seasons, while both and the town were distracted and kept busy by other, seasonal villains, telling more of the background, adding depth to the characters, preparing means for the big showdown final of the show, but shimmering through here and there, little moments showing, that Regina is continuously plotting her revenge, while Rumple is working on his defense.

I dislike what they made of Regina. The Regina we have now is rather boring, just another whiny wannabe villain with sob background story. They have a chance with Marian and with bringing in Frozen to still make something of it, although I have a bad feeling.

¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯

[Myril]

And what is the difference between real world and fiction? We have been discussing Storybrooke characters all the time, I have, with short distraction like this question about special TV channel. Unfortunately so far OUaT, Storybrooke doesn’t offer any example for queer parents, so had to take real world ones to point out it is possible.

LGBTQI is about politics, policies, society even in fiction. Fiction is a reflection of society and the possibility to play with options. Defining incest is as much about politics and society and that doesn’t seem to be an issue, is it? Adoption is about politics and society. Ethics, the question if there is something like redeemption is about politics, society, religion. One true love is about society and philosophy and politics. Women as rulers of a kingdom is politics, women as single working mothers are politics. But only here we have to exclude politics?

¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯

[Myril]

From my point of view it is up to the character to define themselves, as strange as that sounds. Some writers approach their characters even not as entities they’ve created, but fictional person they are getting to know, observing, shadowing for a while, so there are some surprises sometimes in for the writers even.

Proof is when the character states something. So queer unless stated (and not unless shown) otherwise: Being shown so far in only hetero relationship doesn’t make anyone exclusive hetero IMO. But I am aware that this is a point of view not that much shared even in the queer community, because it means as well, unless stated, that a person shown so far in same gender relationship is not automatically lesbian/gay either. The binary of sexual orientation, to be one or the other, hetero or gay, doesn’t work for me, neither do I see bisexuality, pansexuality, fluid as something somewhere between these two assumed ends of spectrum, like the Kinsey scale suggests, but as something going beyond it.

Looking at characters as queer unless otherwise stated includes the possibility of hetero relationships, means same gender but as well opposite and even other gender relationships are possible, it is open. While seeing a character as hetero unless shown otherwise means to be exclusive, onesided: You assume they are interested in relationships with the “opposite” gender, you assume one possibility, unless something different is shown to you. I assume multiple possibilities until it is stated differently.

It indeed means to me at the moment as far as I have noticed no character is off limits, no character is stated to be hetero, we just have so far only seen or heard of hetero relationships. Maybe it is more likely, taking the statistical approach, but likely just doesn’t mean definite nor exclusive, and particular not on individual level. I am tired of just queer characters having to declare themselves, I demand the same from every character, hetero, queer, whatever.

To be absolute clear, repeating it: I expect hetero characters as much to declare themselves as you expect queer characters to declare themselves. It is as simple as that. I want characters to state, declare themselves regardless. Expecting just queer to have to state who they feel attracted to is discrimination.

But for the sake of simplicity and peace I work in the forums mostly with the common assumption, that some characters are more or less defined as hetero even without clear statement, that they are in a happy ending hetero romantic relationship, though they can not yet settle with a happy ending and are confronted by TPTB with some sort of crisis every season.

Did any of you notice, that the idea of being in love with a person and not with a gender has a tendency to come up only when heteronormativity is questioned? I seldom hear someone understanding themselves without doubts as hetero, and without being in a discussion about sexual orientation, say, “I am in love with the person not the gender”. All I can say is: you should be.

But, if we like it or not, gender is a part of our identities, for some more for some less. I’ve said it for a while, that it doesn’t matter what gender a person has, it is their personality that attracts me, falling in love with the person not with a gender, until a transsexual person made me rethink that. To some people their gender is very important, and it is disrespectful to not acknowledge it as part of their personality, their identity as a person, and as a part one falls in love with as with any other part, side, of who they are. So by now, although as bi I could claim I’d care less about gender in my attractions, I don’t phrase it that way anymore. I don’t even think anymore it’s true, because gender does play a role, even though my attractions includes different genders and I work on wrapping my head around non-binary ideas (like struggling to use other pronouns, not really there yet). As much as I wish for a world leaving the binary system of gender behind, I see us not there yet, gender images are running still strong in society.

Concerning Mulan: I can’t tell. So far what we know is, that she had feelings for Aurora, and though not outspoken, it looked likely romantic feelings. Did she have before eyes for Phillip? Maybe, maybe not. Was she checking out Belle? Yeah, looked like it, I would say. Maybe bisexual, maybe lesbian, maybe even straight with just Aurora as exception, I can’t tell. It’s open, nothing is stated so far. It might be likely that the writers think with her they have now already answered the call for a queer characters, so mean her to be lesbian or bisexual, but it is nothing explicit in the show, at best statement off screen in interviews. But in my view of course Mulan is queer, until otherwise stated.

To me SwanQueen is just an option, at the moment a non-canon ship in the fandom like Frankenwolf, but I respect it as that.

Stating, one doesn’t see Regina or Emma as queer is exactly that, a statement about the sexuality of the character, the gender of their love interest, and not a statement about a particular person, it means denying relationship based on their gender and not their personality. I have enough issues with Regina in any relationship at the moment, and certainly with Emma, but their gender is not the issue for me – that much I share with SwanQueen shippers.

A special channel with just LGBTQI program is a stupid idea, that is creating a ghetto on screen, that is exclusive and not inclusive. All children need to see that there is nothing wrong in liking to wear skirts and pants whenever they like, that there is nothing wrong if they want to have as boy long hair and as girl short, that it is sign of nothing but interest in the subject if a boys want to learn ballet or a girl play American football, that wanting to do crafts is not a sign of being lesbian, that liking fashion doesn’t make you gay, that liking your best girlfriend as girl or boyfriend as boy is no sickness, nothing that needs any cure.

The thing is to integrate not to isolate, to show it everywhere. An extra channel for LGBTQI with the intention to keep the other programs conveniently clean of queer is discrimination. It is not helpful.

And because I find it more than important to object particular to this point:
Being queer doesn’t exclude at all fatherhood or motherhood, it doesn’t destroy reproductive organs or makes it impossible to have offspring. Tell that Cynthia Nixon or Cydney Bernard, both mothers of proper children, tell that Robert de Niro (father gay), 50 cents (mother bi), Lynn and Vanessa Redgrave (father bi). Having children says NOTHING about who you romantically love, feel attracted to. Claiming it does matter, that people having children can’t be queer or queer people can’t be (biological) parents is homophobe prejudice and offensive.

But before I start to dissect every offensive prejudice and discrimination expressed in the last couple of posts, and get more angry doing so, I will decline from further discussion.

One last statement:
OUaT lacks not just queer characters (potential is there), but queer relationship(s)

It’s a show about love and hope – and I still hope, that they are not as exclusive as they’ve presented themselves so far looking at the pairings on the show, but finally show diversity and not just talk about it on panels.

And I couldn’t care less now, how the rest of the fandom, the audience reacts if they do it.

Thanks @RumplesGirl for being one understanding.

I am appalled how otherwise prejudices and negative attitudes towards queer people are maintained here by some people. edit: Nothing any moderation can take care of.

¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯

[Myril]

Even if Emma was Emmett or Regina was Reginald…I’d still be against SwanQueen, for the same reason! It’s borderline Incest…..Regina is technically Emma’s grandmother through marriage, and that fact alone is what solely stands out to most Oncers. Had that not been a problem, then hey, SwanQueen may have happened, because in the pilot…I originally thought Emma was a lesbian, and was convinced up till the part where she explained to Henry about how his father was a hero.

I know that some people argue that way, I have no problem with that, I am just saying, that some people argue against SwanQueen primarely based on their biase against a queer relationship, and even more so for the leading women of the show, but they do find and use other arguments against it. By the way, for the record so to speak, because I know we will not agree, IMO it wouldn’t be incest, not even borderline, but I have a very narrow definition of incest.

It is one argument brought up against SwanQueen the other I’ve seen in discussions was, Regina tried to kill Emma and her parents, there was too mach evil done, (I have no statistics, what is argued with more often, if anyone has those, please let me know, could need those for some research, and it is the same kind of argument brought up against OutlawQueen, aware of that). But as well can find the argument, that Emma was with Neal, so she can’t be into a woman ever, and Regina was with Daniel. That argument is heteronormative at best. It gets into homophobic territory the moment people are saying, that OUaT is a family show, primetime, Sunday and that is not the time and place for portraying “something like that” aka queer relationships as one of the main relationship.

I am not claiming that Oncers arguing against SwanQueen are all homophob, but saying that some are, and some are arguing homophob without noticing it. One can see people arguing against SwanQueen saying, Regina did too much hurtful things to Emma, and the same people having no problem though with OutlawQueen. That this is happening is evidence that for some the main problem, whatever else they are bringing up, is that they don’t want a queer relationship (of main characters), occasionally even without noticing, that their arguing is showing double standards.

Interesting, that you perceived Emma as lesbian first. I am honestly curious: Why? But of course I question, why would telling Henry, his father was a hero, stand in the way for Emma being open for a romantic relationship with women?

@TheWatcher My mistake, I’ve given up watching True Blood after the first 10 episodes because found it boring. I know that there has been open discussion, that the whole setup in True Blood is an allegory for the situation of queer people and queer rights, but that view has been meet with some reservation and criticism from some queers. Vampires often have an ambiguous sexuality, but are as much portrayed as dangerous, deadly, violent, enforcing themselves on others, as the enticing evil. Interestingly a book and movie series like Twilight pretty much has no ambiguity of the supernatural characters, and for sure not of the good guys among them, they are simply straight.

What I said still stands, even for Tara from True Blood. Why do there have to be suggestions and build up? Tara is exploring queerness now, so what? Not even in real life there is always a (noticeable) process for some going on, they just start dating someone of the same gender. Would it have been more comprehensible for the audience if there had been signs? Probably. From what I read would guess Tara could be a character describing herself as fluid, but don’t know what the character claims or says (some use the term fluid as something close to or instead of pansexual or bisexual, I don’t quite like that term, because I find nothing fluid about my sexuality, I am simply into more than one gender). But looking forward to your response.

¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯

[Author]

Posts