Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@Crystal Princess – You’re right, the issue was not really resolved, and I had not the nerv to pursue it, because any further response by me would have been some very angry response, which I found though unproductive for me. So I gave up on expecting anything and choose ignoring for the time being.
I think I get what you’re aiming at @PriceOfMagic, @TheWatcher. It is not in itself wrong to assume a character is one or the other. What is wrong though, is to automatically assume and then even worse to insist, that a character is hetero, to make it the norm. As long as it is not stated by the character, and that is the only “proof” it takes and the only that is reliable, sexual orientation and even gender orientation are open to any side.
The issue is, that queer people have to proof that even their personal headcanon has any right to be, to proof that a character could eventually be queer, while assuming a character is hetero is not in the same way questioned. A character might have never been with anyone in the story so far, shown no romantic interest in anyone at all, and still people insist regularly, that unless the character is shown in a relationship with a character of the same gender, unless there is proof of queerness, the character can’t be queer. As in real life it is though not even taken as proof at times, if the character says, she/he is interested in someone of the same gender, let alone has shown unmistakably signs of interest.
That is what is wrong: Queer ships have to be explained and defended just because, while hetero ships at best are questioned regarding a certain person but rarely just because. It is heteronormativitity which takes away richness of imagination.
I know, claiming that any character is queer until proven otherwise puts anyone used to take it as pretty much given, that a character has hetero relationships, into the inconvenient position to all of a sudden eventually have to justify, why the character could have a relationship with someone of different (“opposite”) gender and not with her best girlfriend / or his best boyfriend. Well, welcome to the club, can give you some tips, because we had to do justify queer ships as long as we can remember, regardless if there were tons of chemistry and closeness and flirting, we had to explain. Each and every time. We even have to justify way too often when a same gender relationship has become canon. So we friendly invite you to walk for a while in our shoes.
To create a (hopefully) parallel situation, when i meet new characters i assume they are good until I see evidence that my assumption may be wrong *looks at Blue Fairy* It’s the same concept for me with sexuality though I rarely ever have questioned that with characters. If the character is supposed to be intended as gay then usually a show will make that clear eventually or else when it does come out (heh heh I think I made a pun) it’ll seem like it came out of nowhere. Example: Tara in True Blood. I never had any inkling Tara was a lesbian (or even bi?) until poof, here she is in bed with another woman after about 3 or 4 seasons where they could have atleast had some build up to it or suggested it.
What I’m saying is that in real life, sure, just assuming a person’s sexuality could be wrong *shrug* But there are plenty of people I know that I have never seen in relationships of any kind and I’m still pretty sure they are straight until they tell me otherwise. In TV Land though? If the writers want us to know a character is gay then they would probably make that clear.
The problem is, people do assume a person’s sexuality, as you admit it even, we do it without thinking, we assume someone as hetero, unless we’re told otherwise. We don’t talk about it, we don’t need to, because it is the “normal” thing. So unless you have doubts or are told otherwise you don’t see a reason to talk about it at all. Heteros never have to come out to anyone, they just are. Queer people have to come out to people their whole live, they never just are, they have to tell, to explain and often enough to justify. Every time I meet new people, they assume I am hetero, and when I tell them I am not, I am bisexual, they always react like, ah , okay, hey, wouldn’t have guessed (as if that were a compliment), but no problem. The problem is, they assumed otherwise before even asking.
And I guess you meant Willow not Tara. because it took not even an episode to make clear Tara is lesbian. Willow called herself a lesbian, so that is what she is, regardless that she has been with a guy (Oz) before (as much as I as bisexual would have loved to claim Willow as one of “my” group, but she isn’t). There were hints from the beginning, besides the big clue of alternative universe bisexual acting vampire Willow, it was a possibility. And when the chemistry was there, between Willow and Tara, the writers went for it. I found it rather amusing how clueless people were, people not used reading subtext that is, the very first time Tara met Willow it was obvious, what a chemistry, some were even still in denial though after the beautiful and ambiguous scene when the two did some very intense and sweat producing magic together.
Do hetero ships need much build up? Do there have to be at least suggestions, the character is hetero before there could be any kind of romantic interest? And love on first sight, true love as destiny is such a common concept, why can’t it as well happen in a queer ship?
Ehh, I slightly disagree. Look at Philora, it was hinted and in subtext that there was in attraction before it became full on obvious, I get that. But on the other hand….(and this might get some backlash)… Look at SwanQueen.. A lot of people ship SwanQueen saying there has been plenty of subtext within the writing and acting when in reality there was never any intended subtext at all. So saying LGBT are just given in subtext could just be one’s opinion and interpretation of a character.
Think you mean Mulora, maybe better known as Sleeping Warrior? Philora is Disney canon, aka, Phillip and Aurora. And beg to differ, there have been enough scenes between Regina and Emma that very well can be read in queer subtext as flirting and attraction, though in plain text they were merely read as tension. Besides some, what we like to call at times “eyesex” there were things like, Regina giving Emma red apples (that was so subtext on many levels not just queer, but as well queer), them doing magic together. I very much agree in this point with Swanqueen shippers, if one of the two were a guy less people would question a possible romance, because it would be not the first time an antagonist and protagonist ending up us couple, even more so when sharing some interest, in this case they share love for Henry. People shipped Angel and Buffy, Spike and Buffy, so what is the difference?
Is, was the subtext between Regina and Emma intentional? No, in interviews writers and actors said it was not. But there are two sorts of subtext: the one intended by the writers, and one read by the audience. As one more reason to be taken serious than the other? Why should that be? We interpret every piece of fiction, actually everything even non-fiction, from our points of view, including our wishes, hopes, fears. We do that constantly here in the forums, it’s part of the fun. We read things into it, we discuss it, we sometimes agree and sometimes disagree, and it’s always interpretation. Just look at all the discussions in character threads and some shipping about a number of hetero ships, what is true love, what means soulmate, is there only one true love – there is a lot of reading and interpretation going on, and that is fine. But when it comes to queer subtext (or sometimes other more unwanted political reading of fiction) then it becomes more of an issue. It is then not just discussed as a matter of different interpretation but the queer view is frequently belittled as “over-interpretation” – and that is highly annoying.
[adrotate group="5"]¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
Regina was jealous of Snow, of her having all she wished for from her point of view. Snow had her true love Prince Charming, the people loved and helped Snow even despite the threats and fear Regina spread, even someone as seemingly uninterested in humans as the hunter Graham, who preferred to live with wolfs and pretty much despised humans, “fell” for the sweetness and innocence Snow seemed to represent to people. Regina saw a different Snow, one who couldn’t keep her mouth shut, who believed she was good and doing good but caused that way havoc in Regina’s life, who was adored by her father to a degree of being a spoiled brat. People assumed an inner beauty in Snow, that from the point of view of Regina wasn’t there.
It was not about the outer beauty, or only in the sense, that we in general assume a connection between inner and outer beauty. It would have been maybe a bit clearer if they’d used the phrase as it was in the fairy tale (and if I remember correctly as well in the animated movie): “fairest of them all”, so instead of pretty let have Snow said, “she thought I was fairer than her”. Problem is, many are not aware of that meaning of fair, the meaning of beautiful to look at. To me that sentence was not a lie, more of a misplaced linguistic modernisation of a thought at the very core of the Snow White tale, Snow’s alleged pureness and (inner) beauty. A nod to the movie, to what people know about the tale but written badly. It was odd that Snow used the word pretty instead of fair seeing that otherwise they let the characters talk old fashioned in the EF. Unnecessary and in this case even misleading modernisation for the sake of getting a modern audience into it.
Ginnifer Goodwin said in an interview though as well, that they played a bit with the vanity of Snow, who after all in the tale is blended by shiny things, typical young woman so to speak though, like a nice comb, silky laced bodices, a tasty looking apple.
You can find that interview btw on the first page of this thread.
I have some problems with the overall writing and with the writing of snow concerning relationship to Emma, but making Snow a somewhat ambiguous character, and they did that from the pilot on, was a rather good move. People though struggle to see Snow in a less favorable way, and I think they don’t really bring it across. Good intentions by the writers but not so good execution. The twisted thing is, that Mary Margaret in some ways might have been actually the better version of Snow, exception maybe the bandit Snow side. It would be rather ironic, if Regina’s Dark Curse brought out the better of Snow, her actual beauty and fairness. Regina might have thought, might have been made to believe she was in control of the curse, but she never fully was. Besides that Rumple was the true mind behind it, think the curse had a bit of a mind of its own.
And still the Dark Curse did its job, as Ginny quite nicely describes it in that interview, MM is constantly getting in her own way. Even after the curse is broken she still does.
I agree with @WickedRegal that Snow is a bit of a self righteous hero. She is frequently missing how ambiguous good intentions can be at times. Not sure if I said it here in the forums before, but IMO most heroes are the fools doing the stupid stuff but getting away with and in most cases save lifes. What they do might have been not even the reasonable thing to do, though it was despite all the right thing to do (reasonable and right are different from what we choose mostly to belief in our modern scientific world view not automatically one and the same). And doing the right not always means doing good for all who would deserve it, it can have plenty of shades of grey. The problem is, that some of the people convinced that they are the good guys just can’t admit it, that good and evil are often not that far from each other, not as clear cut as we wish it to be.
Snow should know better, but she chooses to wrap herself into some pink bubble of hope again and again (while Regina is the other end of the scale, wrapping herself again and again in a black bubble of despair).
This is a difficult one. I don’t think a parent can really be the friend of their child. A friend is on an equal standing with the child whilst a parent is an authority figure and therefore a higher position.
But as Emma points out in 301, how much wisdom can Snow really share when they are the same age? Snow doesn’t have the life experience to teach Emma, not really. Especially not in the “real” world.
Seeing it somewhat different what parents are or should be. The role of parents is in constant change with the child growing up, but that might be because I grew up with what is called a democratic parenting style, in our case leaning more to the permissive side than authoritarian. Seeing parents less in a higher position but more in a position of more experience and knowledge which is what establishes a (timely limited) authority until the child is able to judge in the matters itself. In other words, with the increase of knowledge and experience of the child the authority of the parents decreases. At best it leads to a change over time in relationship of parents and child coming closer to a friendship, mutual respect and care without (forced) dependency.
But besides that, because Snow didn’t raise Emma any attempt to parent Emma is stupid, the only chance for a good relationship to her is to become her friend.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
Interesting discussion, nice material for any ethics course.
Evil isn’t born, it’s made. I agree with that, but I disagree about where this leads to, what consequences it has. To me it leads to the view, that as evil is made, so is good, there are choices for everybody to make, it leads to the assumption we are responsible for our own actions and not some god or nature or whatever outer force.
Either way, born or made, it can and is read as: Evil is not a choice but something coming onto people. Evil is either destiny, or for the more scientific minds the genes, nature, or people are forced pretty much into it by circumstance, a crappy life, a childhood in hell, someone or something making their lives miserable or by some more powerful people than themselves. The assumption is, as long as it is not of your very own doing, it is not your responsibility.
I don’t agree with that. Higher powers, nature, circumstance, whatever, they might create the moment, set the playing field and the figures to play with, but it is still us making the moves. Nature, circumstances can explain, make me understand, sympathize and see, that likely in the same situation I might have decided and acted the same way, but nothing of that IMO takes away any responsibility. There is always a choice, to act one way or the other. The consequences of the choice might be dire for me or for others, hard to accept, unlikely anything any wants, but that doesn’t change that we have a choice. If someone tells me to kill a person or I would die myself, I still have a choice, to kill that person (dire consequence for them) or to be killed myself (dire consequence for me). As understandable as it is if someone chooses to kill the person and for themselves life, it doesn’t take away responsibility. It means I am not the only one responsible for the death of that person, the one who told me to kill is as well responsible, but it doesn’t change that I had a hand in it.
True, Regina was exploited and manipulated by Rumple to do the dirty work for him. As much as I find it wrong and even outrageous how people are ready to overlook Rumple responsibilities, that doesn’t take away any responsibility Regina has for her choices, No, it was not fair, life is not fair, but she made her choices, she had options, to walk away, to not kill the villagers, to not make Snow eat the apple, to go and kill the witch instead of sending children in. She choose to stick with revenge, to attempt murder of Snow and Charming, to execute people of a whole village, assuming they would withhold information about Snow’s whereabouts and even help her (did they?), Regina made other people suffer and their lives miserable, she exploited and manipulated people herself.
I don’t care here about other people’s guilt, choices, in this moment and thread Regina’s actions are on trial. Whatever explanations and excuses she has for her actions, even might have had some rights as queen to do certain things because law’s of the kingdom allowed it, that is at best important for defining the degree of punishment. The question is: Did Regina right or did she wrong. One can ask that question based on the most common laws in effect around the world (despite differences in detail, nations and cultures share some ideas about what is legit and what not) and/or ethically. We’re talking good and evil here, so it is more about ethics than jurisdiction. It’s a question to ask regardless how much sympathy we might feel with someone.
In my opinion Regina did plenty of wrong things. She send children to get something for her that she needed to take a person out of her way, she exploited them to be able to do more wrong. She took people’s hearts and manipulated them into doing her bidding. She executed a village, and that means that included people who probably couldn’t tell where Snow was nor had helped her, thus innocent people, that is something tyrants do. She didn’t do anything for the sake or good of the people she was queen of, she did it all for her own sake, she didn’t care if the people were doing well, she cared if they love her. Whatever reasons and excuses one can have for everything Regina did, it doesn’t change to me that she did other people wrong, she did evil.
Regina had a very clear moment of choice when she was about to leave the kingdom after she had pushed her mother into the mirror, she first gave Rumple back the book, but he teased her, played her buttons, and Regina choose to stay and learn magic. Rumple didn’t threaten her life, he “just” played her, but she had the choice. Probably she choose magic more in false hope to be able to somehow get her love Daniel back, but there was nothing forcing her to keep on going after Snow, she choose to do so.
Does that make Regina irredemable? I don’t belief in heaven or hell so I don’t belief in redemption. What I do belief in is that people can change, that there is no destiny, and not even nature can stop us from changing, to the worse or to the better. I get why people cling to the idea of a preset fate or destiny, because as long as one can belief they’re destined to have a happy life and everything bad thrown at them is just challenge, temptation, the bad temper of life and the work of some outer evil, there is hope, that things will as miraculously turn to the better as they for the moment seem to be bad. It is quite a relief. As long as one can claim to be on the good end of things in the final moment of judgment day that is, although I am not sure how they can be that sure. What if not? Then they are destined to end in hell, all good deeds useless.
Can Regina reform? Yes, she can change, in that sense she is redeemable. What Regina did in the past is unforgivable, although people can choose to forgive her that even. It is unimportant for Regina’s reform, because that should not be driven by the question if people forgive her her past nor if people ever will like her, love her, be on her side. Regina can do the right things, the good, any time, it is her choice. She did some right things, and regardless that her motivation to do them was sometimes more selfish, driven to do what served her best, that is true for the good guys often enough as well, not holding it against her. Her motivations only make me doubt, how she will eventually chose the next moment, but not assume she will do bad again, it is open in my opinion.
That is why I say, with Marian back in the picture Regina has now a chance to do it right this time. If she truly loves Robin, she will accept whatever choice he will make, show him her love in a productive way and not push the mother of his child out of the way with all means. And if she truly has grown she will not get on the revenge train again, which though doesn’t have to mean that she needs to be big buddy with Emma.
Not that I think the writers will right away let Regina be that bold and generous, she will struggle, there will be drama, her happy ending is likely some seasons away, whatever it will be.
I guess what I’m trying to say, over all, is that when we cover up our favorite’s actions we actually reduce their character and take something away from them. We should acknowledge the horrible nature of Regina’s past actions because they show us how far she’s come. If you simply white wash her away with “she’s a victim and I can see the bright side of everything she’s ever done” then I think you do a disservice to her character. You aren’t called Evil Regals for nothing. You feel in love with Regina, the Evil Queen, the woman in all black who dared to walk into a wedding and curse everyone. We celebrate her snarkiness and her cunning but we can’t go so far as to white wash away her crimes in order to, subconsciously I think, make her into someone we should like.
Would say, subconsciously turn her into someone we are allowed to like, because our super-egos (conscience) tell us, liking a person doing bad things is wrong. Otherwise well said.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
As for the Rumple and Cora, Adam and Eddy never said the word soulmate, they said the word Kindred Spirit.
Beg to differ. And I have prove.
Rumplestiltskin = Sex Machine?
Expect some flashback sexy time between Rumple and young Cora. Who knew the baddie with the not-so-great skin would be such a hit with the ladies? “If you go back and you watch him in Cinderella and other things,” corrected Kitsis, “there’s lots of sexiness to the way he plays the character and what we really loved is what was he like truly in love. We saw him as pre-Dark One with Milah but they had very few moments of happiness but Cora is his soulmate in a lot of ways. She understands him in a way that other people don’t because she’s not trying to make him a better man.”
from: Once Upon a Time Scoop: Snow’s Dark Side, Gold’s Vengeance, The Future for Emma and Bae
by Jim Halterman at March 8, 2013 1:00 pm. TVFanaticQuote includes misspellings on the site.
So looks like Kitsis even agrees with you @WickedRegal that soulmates might mean a deeper connection than other relationships, but he called Cora Rumple’s soulmate.
edit: And later Adam tried to backpedal on Twitter, people were so not happy, that Cora and Rumple might have had any kind of thing, asking people not to get too hung about semantics and single terms. Someone brought up the term “kindred spirit”. Seeing a difference between true love and soulmate is nothing else but semantics IMO, but I am trying to go with it here.
Meek future then for Belle, if their is only one soulmate in a life possible. Or maybe not. Lucky for Belle that Rumple got killed while killing and stopping his own father and then was resurrected by his son, who sacrificed his life for it. So because Rumple was dead, has now a second life, he now is allowed to have a second soulmate as well. Neal made it possible, he is the hero, and Belle can rejoice, she now has a chance of a deeper connection to Rumple that before didn’t exist. A connection that goes beyond true love, one that means not abusing the power of true love’s kiss to change a person if it might be simply their nature or fate to be as cursed as they are. I mean, Belle was about to change Rumple with her true love’s kiss at a time when he must have been still bound to Cora, and Belle misjudged him, because looks like he wants to be the Dark One or has to be the Dark One, because Cora knew better than trying true love’s kiss, she was wise and empathic enough to hold back.
And I have to ask, because I am honestly not sure: Are you saying that other couples, Snow and Charming, Aurora and Phillip, Ariel and Eric, and maybe as well (in the past) Belle and Rumple are not as deep connected and meant to be as Regina and Robin are?
I am not saying, that Emma hasn’t messed up. That was not the point. The writers even say, she feels guilty about it, and I agree with them, that is Emma. She doesn’t need Regina to tell her, that for Regina now again things got difficult, she knew the moment she realized, who she had brought back to the present time with her, and she doesn’t feel good about it.
If Regina has the right to solely blame Emma now for things being difficult again between Regina and Robin that is another matter though. But more importantly: Instead of raging about Emma’s mistakes, Regina should start to think about, how she will win back her soulmate. If it’s fate anyway it’s a total waste of energy to blame Emma and rage about her and maybe even go after her. And fate or not fate, it would show that Regina has grown, if she now focuses on how to find a solution to be with her soulmate without executing, killing, cursing someone and particular not Marian. Because regardless that maybe Marian and Robin weren’t meant to stay together, there is still Roland, and Marian is his mother, and Roland loves her. Regina gets a second chance to do things right this time, show her true genius and heart, instead of shoving Marian out of her way by any means. Yes, it sucks that her happiness was ruined for the moment, but she shouldn’t make it worse, turning back to Evil Queen hardly will make it better, and use her energy, charm, knowledge, heart to win Robin back.
For the record: We majorly disagree about fate.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
Belle had a story not revolving around Rumple. Given, it was after she’d met Rumple, but so what, Rumple came into play only at the end of the episode being the reason why Regina went after Belle and imprisoned. Otherwise hunting down the Yaoguai was Belle’s story, showing that going on adventure was something she still wanted to do and did on her own, that she is smart, that smart is at time what changes lives to the better, that Belle is someone seeing beyond what there is on first sight, saving Phillip’s live, giving Mulan an idea about that not just the sword matters and being a hero can come in other forms (preparing nicely what Mulan later saw in Aurora). That story told so much more about Belle as character than I at the moment can imagine any childhood story, any how was life before Rumple story could have done or would.
I get that people are more interested in her background when they love a character, that is okay, I would love to have the whole life story of Granny and Red, just because. But the question is, what more do we need to know about the character? Does it move the story on, does it show a new side of the character or something that needs some background to be explained? Would looking into the past of a character raise a new interesting matter for the show or for the character? I feel like it would have been a lot more important and is a far bigger fail for the show to show a significant moment of Emma’s foster past to understand why she was such a runner, but all we got was a mere minute, a glimpse, though it added really something.
So question: What could be revealed or adressed showing Belle before she met Rumple?
Maybe it could explain, why she is so blind to Rumple’s evilness. Could simple say, love makes blind, but somehow I prefer to see love as a positive aspect of life, improving and extending our selves and not diminishing them. I am losing more and more any respect for the person Belle, although it does make her on the other hand more interesting and complex as a character than being the lovely, friendly, forgiving innocence she is seen as often. She’s reminding me by now somewhat of Eva Braun, the woman who adored and idealized Hitler. I am not saying with that, that Rumple is like Hitler, though IMO Rumple is the big bad of the show, just saying that Belle is either naive or willing to overlook what Rumple is doing, people wondered the same about Eva Braun. How can someone be in love with a person making so many other people suffer and exploite people for his own purposes and convictions? I found it intriguing when Belle said, that she loves even the dark sides of Rumple. But that means she is not the nice, friendly, openminded, innocent person many want to see in her, she has her own dark side. Well, power can be attractive.
The real test for Belle’s love will come, when Rumple loses his power, stops to be the Dark One, if that ever will happen. Can Belle love a simple man, the vulnerable, fearful guy who is plagued by feeling inadequate and at the mercy of others or fate as much as she loves the charming, witty but reckless and ruthless powerful magician with a soft side? She might believe she would, but would she? Or would she react alike Milah did and find him abhorrent?
Was it just an adventurous streak and goodness (the will to sacrifce herself for the many) that drove her to offer herself as prize for Rumple for stopping the Ogres attacking her people? And was it goodness or as much curiosity and attraction to danger and power which then made her stay with Rumple and fall for him?
I dislike Belle as a person, she has double standards and doesn’t even seem to care the least bit anymore to see things from a different perspective than Rumple’s. She’s blinded by love. Now that could be because she is just naive, the typcial female bookworm, lost in romance and theory but having no clue and even less any sense for the hard realities of real life, she lives in some pink soap bubble – but that wouldn’t be much flattering, would it. The other option I see is that she is willing to overlook that Rumple has a destructive and for others very harmful dark side, maybe even is okay with it. Belle said, she loves his dark side, so sound to me more at the moment that it’s the latter. Belle is sure not responsible for anything that Rumple did before they met, neither responsible for what he is doing, but she is responsible for her own doings.
So what will Belle do, when learning Rumple trusted her only with a fake dagger, lied to her and others, killed a person who at that moment was without means to defend herself (what Rumple did is wrong, he murdered Zelena, claiming to be judge and jury and executioner in one, taking revenge, which has nothing to do with doing justice, and he didn’t kill Zelena in defense to protect anyone, at that moment Zelena had not her power, was at best a potential threat, but that is true for pretty much everyone, we all can potentially harm people). Will she call him out for it? Or will she explain it away being all understanding, forgiving and in love?
I think it would be interesting to see Belle have a more Lacey-like reaction to finding out Rumple killed Zelena. The lies would definitely cause a massive argument between RumBelle but Zelena hasn’t done anything to garner sympathy from any of the other characters.
I’d like to see Belle stand by Rumple and it could also make Rumple realise that he has to change for the better, otherwise he’s going to drag Belle down into the darkness with him rather than her pulling him up out of the darkness.
Yes, that could be an interesting way to develop the story, the characters and the relationship of Rumple and Belle further. We had a hint of that in season 2, when Rumple noticed that he was pleased with Lacey, enjoying her, but on the other hand it meant that he had lost what else Belle was, and even more important, that Belle had pretty much lost herself.
It could be interesting to see more of Belle and without Rumple, in the past and/or present, but maybe should be careful, what we wish for, it might not be to the liking of all what we might get to see.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
Umm…when Emma and Hook encountered Past Rumple, he specifically told them to touch nothing else….and bringing someone back who was supposed to die, is definitely messing with fate and destiny, who had brought Robin and Regina together without that whole Marian Death issue, because that never would have come out, and everyone would still be happy.
Robin and his son Roland suffered. They maybe have reached a point to move on and find new happiness in life, but it’s not like they not already paid a heavy prize for Regina not embracing her own alleged fate. Regina ran away from it at the tavern, didn’t she, or was that fate too, because, she and Robin weren’t meant to come together yet, not this way, Tinkerbell was tinkering with fate? But does that mean, it was Robin’s fate to meet Marian, do everything to save her life, even get tortured by Rumple, have a son with her only to lose her through Regina, to suffer? Or had he been tinkering with fate, when he got the fairy wand to safe Marian’s life when she was sick, her and Roland’s, because she was pregnant at that time with him, so Robin has a prize to pay now, by making him suffer that Marian is not actually dead ,so that Robin can’t be with his soulmate anymore without feelings of guilt?
And to correct Regina’s choice at the tavern to run away and not meet the guy the fairy dust told she was destined to be with, fate then made Regina execute Marian? Regina is not to blame for anything because it was all fate? Such kind of argument should make any murder happy: Fate made them do it, so no guilt, so no prize to pay, no punishment, we should put fate into prison. And because it eventually might have not come to light otherwise (can’t be sure about that though, can we) it doesn’t matter at all that Regina in the other timeline killed Roland’s mother? I find that logic screwed.
And was it fate, that Cora murdered Daniel, made Regina suffer, and Snow did nothing else than help fate on it’s way, because in the great scheme of things Regina was never meant to be with Daniel, it has always been Robin she was meant to be with? And was it fate that Regina had to suffer this so that she would after doing many terrible things discover deep down in her soul love? I am wondering.
Who says Marian was meant to die? Just because she died in the past nothing says, she was meant to die. As well it could be that fate now corrected its course with Emma saving her life. Arguing with fate is always tricky. Why should be one thing, one act fate but the other not? There is no book we can look it up in if it indeed had been written before, that things had to happen the way they happened.
And the answer to the Robin and Regina’s fast progression is simple…they’re the only soulmates, so far confirmed on the show. Soulmates are of an entirely different level than True Loves such as the other couples…a deeper, firmer connection soulmates have than true loves. You can have many true loves, but only one soul mate.
It was said by the writers, that Cora was Rumple’s soulmate. So following your view, Rumple and Cora had a deeper connection than Rumple ever will have with Belle, who is just one of his many true loves. But why does have true love’s kiss such a power to break curses? Cora couldn’t break Rumple’s Dark One curse with a kiss, but Belle nearly did. If I understand that right, it could mean, that Rumple is meant by fate to be the Dark One, something Cora, being the soulmate with her unique deep connection understood and didn’t try to change, but Belle did not understood Rumple, so she tried to change him, although by now Belle seems to have given into that fate. Which though explains beautifully, why Belle’s kisses now don’t seem to have anymore any affects on the Dark One’s curse.
What are Snow and Charming then, the rare example of soulmate and true love being one and the same? Could explain why in Emma as the product of that rare combination such strong magic is running.
Then was that fake prince though Cora’s soulmate, because there was some very strong magic running in Zelena.
The view, soulmate and true love are not the same has merits, but never sounded to me like the writers truly made a difference so far, they just didn’t want to use the same expression all the time. They probably haven’t given it much thought though, because commonly soulmate and true love is used for the very same concept, the idea, that somewhere in this world there is a human meant to be our partner in life, our “better” half. This image of the half comes from Greek mythology: Humans once were creatures with two heads, four arms and legs, but split up by the gods, who feared the power of those creatures. But then these split up creatures began to suffer terrible death, and the gods took mercy and made it so, that the two halves could reunite in a different physical way. So now we all are driven to find our other half to feel complete again and embrace life fully.
If in the show the concept is indeed a different one, soulmate and true love being different things, fine, just saying that it would show other relationships in a different light as well.
Emma meddled with things, but so did Regina. So did Rumple, so does everybody. They make choices, choices have consequences. That is not fate, that is life.
Think Regina doesn’t need to make Emma feel guilty, Emma is seeing very well for herself, that bringing Marian with her has impact. That Emma sure didn’t do it on purpose doesn’t reduce Emma’s responsibility for changing things. But it wasn’t Emma’s responsibility, that Regina ran away from Robin the first time they had a chance to meet. Regina lashing out at Emma the way she did was not justified, though it was explainable, even as first reaction understandable, but if Regina acts on that first feeling, she will again blame others and make them bear consequences for things she is as much to blame for herself. If Regina truly has grown over the past season, she will not go after Emma, but look for better ways to win her love back than killing his son’s mother. Regina gets now a chance to do things right.
What the writers though were talking about was Emma’s view of things here. Whatever Regina will do, Emma right now feels guilty, finding new love and romance herself (with Hook we can guess, the little detail implied but not noticed by many it seems), while with doing something right, saving a life, she seemed to have taken away Regina’s chance for new love. Emma wouldn’t be Emma if not feeling bad about it. And being her mother’s daughter eventually Emma might try to help Regina to find happiness nevertheless and thus make things maybe even only worse for a while. Emma will pay a prize for what she did, I have no worries about that.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
The fictional world building including a basic geography of the worlds/realms (are they each spheres on their own or all part of one big sphere? And the geography of the worlds) and how magic works is underdeveloped, one of the big problems of the show and becoming increasingly frustrating. Way too many plotholes, even of the blackplothole kind (sucking everything in coming a little to close, from other plots, the overall story arc, never to be seen and heard of again, not talking about things which can be explained eventually later). Of course the focus should be on the character development and the story more driven by that, but disregarding a decent world building is harming character driven story telling. Writing the same here what I did on another forum. There has to be a basic structure, rules, a matrix in which the characters have to operate, exposing the conflicts and trouble and drama going on inside a character and between characters. The world has to limit powers and possibilities and consistently so, especially if it is a fantasy magical world. In the end the character are limiting themselves, but the restrains of the world are what brings it to light.
That is why plenty of fantasy worlds fall rather flat if it comes to character development, a few might pay too much attention to detail but most fail in world building, there has to be a logic inside the universe created. It’s not about defining every tiny detail, and one can bend things a bit if need be, but what they’re doing on the show is quite random.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
Given she comes close to the physical appearance of Elsa in the movies. Problem is, she looks 10 years too young for what at least the spoiler said, and I thought so before I looked up her age, but she’s indeed 18 (they’re looking for end 20s/ early 30s). One can do a lot with make-up, but why should they do such extra effort if they have a number of actresses to choose from? Unless Anna Faith is at the same time an extraordinary acting talent, because I find the acting skills a bit more important than being a look-alike.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
As for Elsa… she’s more a gay-icon than an icon who is gay. Of course we don’t know for sure but the ambiguity and lack of development surrounding Elsa has allowed fans to craft Elsa into their own character. Her story mimics, almost perfectly, the struggle most LGBTQ people have to go through when coming out of the closet. THAT’S why we’ve sort of ‘hijacked’ her, and claimed her as ‘one of us
Elsa is concerning romance a blank slate. Any kind of shipping going on around Elsa on the wild wild web is practically hickjacking the character, queer as much as hetero shipping. I find it important to point that out, because even us queer people sometimes fall for the trap to see it as something special, probably because we so seldom get the feeling, that it could be something coming true on screen as well. People fantasizing about Elsa being in love, in a relationship with someone are projecting their wishes, hopes, ideas, dreams onto her regardless if they ship her with a man or a woman.
The frequent objection, that a ship is not canon hits queer people far more often, because queer relations on screen are few compared to the vast number of hetero couples to ship, who happen on screen or are at least openly toyed with on screen. Queer people have a lot less opportunities to identify with a character directly.
Interestingly enough though, a significant number of male pairing (slash) fanfiction seems to be still written by women, not by men as one might guess. Recently some mostly female fanfiction writers in China were arrested for posting slash stories (slash usually means it involves more explicit content, the stories written about women’s love are usually called femslash, for those not familiar with the terms). Not the first time btw, but the first time it got a bit of media attention here. Yup, for celebrating your preferred ship you can get arrested in some places of this world (like in Uganda, Russia and other countries defining it as offense to write or say in public, same gender relations are okay) and not “just” face a storm of trolls and bullies (which can be psychologically devastating enough). Most of these flash writing women though seem to be not queer (neither in their sexual orientation nor their gender orientation), exploring probably with these male pairings sides of relationships they don’t feel that safe to explore themselves or in (fictional) het relationships. Female sexuality is something rather hushed, although in the past years in the Western societies a little less, but even here women expressing their sexuality freely are still frequently judged as not properly behaving, while men just let off steam. If anyone wonders: I haven’t read yet about men writing femslash, though doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
The moment I watched JMo’s interview with Digitalspy knew we’re going to see the next useless and all wrong “shoitstorm” on Social Web. I have seen bad shipping wars inside Xena fandom, the love square of Xena, Gabrielle, Ares and Joxer, not to mention the tough fights about Gab and Xena being friends or lovers – it put me really off from getting more involved, though I kept track on things. The easy modern Social web makes it only a lot more visible and accessible for more people – before it happened on usenet, later as well the first forums, and on conventions mainly. What was even less noticed in public, because it was back in the days even less visible than wars between fans (letters to the showmakers were seldom published), are that in extreme it is not “just” about fans getting at each other throats but also at the throats of the showrunners, writers and actors. Due to Social Web that is something that now is becoming a lot more visible as it has become in a way easier to have (seemingly) better access to the folks making the shows. By now I sometimes wonder, when we would have to meet regularly in real life at theaters to watch our weekly dosage of fantasy, if it might get into the direction of what one can observe happening in the football (soccer for you Northamericans) fandoms – the main difference is, beside that to satisfy our passion we don’t have to meet in person that much so less chance to get into direct physical fights, that football fandoms are a especially masculine shaped subcultures with competition at their very core. It’s interesting though, how in TV fandoms people can get competitive about romantic pairings, as romances and relationship are seen kind of as an area of female expertise (I don’t think that women are any less competitive than men though, they just do it in a different way and maybe about different things).
It is simplifying to say, those are just some extreme individuals, that ignores social and group dynamics. Those extreme voices feel more entitled to get heard the more they have the impression they are voicing something that enough people share and support. They are very often wrong with what they like to claim,, that a majority or significant number of people does fully share their views, but they don’t act in total vacuum either. We act differently in groups than on our own, working each other up eventually. Moods can spread, even virtually (just recently a study was published about it).
Would take some of the attacks with a grain of caution, because trolls love these kinds of dynamics, it’s troll feeding ground. The more opposite views are the easier it is to rile up people. But sadly enough, some are definitely people who call themselves fans of the show.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
