Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The Latin text in the second screenshot is from a Latin poem by a 12th century anonymous author called Archpoet known as “Estuans intrinsecus ira vehementi” (Confession). Parts of it can be found in Carl Orff’s Carmina Burana cantata in the aria “Estuans intrinsicus” (Burning inside)
Here the latin text (aka the last three stanzas of the poem)
Iam virtutes diligo, vitiis irascor,
renovatus animo spiritu renascor,
quasimodo genitus novo lacte pascor,
ne sit meum amplius vanitatis vas cor.Electe Coloniae, parce poenitenti,
fac misericordiam veniam petenti
et da poenitentiam culpam confitenti!
feram quicquid iusseris animo libenti.Parcit enim subditis leo rex ferarum
et est erga subditos immemor irarum;
et vos idem facite, principes terrarum!
quod caret dulcedine nimis est amarum.english translation:
Angered by all vice, I prize every virtue,
cleansed within the mind, now my spirit does renew;
like a babe in arms in milky pastures new,
falsehood no longer in my heart shall brew.My lord of Cologne, spare the penitent,
let showing mercy be your sole intent,
grant now a penance to one not innocent,
I’ll do as you command, with my free consent.Since the lion, king of beasts, pardons those below,
as regards his subjects stemming anger’s flow;
princes of the earth do you likewise, also:
one who lacks sweetness all bitterness shall know.And here a music version of it. (picked that video on purpose, the ballet is kinda fitting to this topic, isn’t it)
Not sure about the drawing opposite this text, but the drawing in the first screenshot is the Tree of life (Kabbalah)
Edit: Kudos to the prop department. Whoever came up with it is a genius. The Confession is a poem where the author confesses his love for his vagabond life, his love of women, gambling and drinking in ironical tone. Anyone thinking of Malcom here? But the text here used very well has something which connects with Rumple as well. Not to mention the meaning of the Tree of life.
[adrotate group="5"]¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
Where We Left Off: In order to save Storybrooke, Regina let Henry destroy the town, sending everyone back to where they came from.
(emphasis added)
TVGuide as a source for spoilers is not really trustworthy when they get things in review wrong like that. Or at least I didn’t see Henry destroy the town (it was Pan in Henry’s body, in that was rather obvious IMO), but maybe I watch a different show than TVGuide does.
Is it just my hazy memory or had there been times when there actually were more quality spoilers to find than self-important hot air like the recent stuff from TVGuide and TVLine?
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
But do we do any better with some of the headlines we’re using here for threads to get attention? No offense, as I said, communication is something we unfortunately don’t learn as much as we should. Just want to nudge reflection here.
Did you even bother to check the link that I posted if you did you would have seen this was an unnecessary comment as RG stated that is what the article head line states.
So even people who think they have experience in customer service makes mistakes huh
No Offense.
No offense taken. For clearity though, I don’t THINK to have experience, I actually have, but sure nevertheless I am not free of making mistakes. Obviously didn’t made myself clear enough with that paragraph. I wasn’t talking just about the title of this thread. Headlines very sure are there to draw attention, but they focus on a certain matter and often even already create opinion. They tell the reader, what is the important thing in the following article or thread, they influence, guide perception.
I followed the link when I first saw it, so I know the headline here is a quote of the headline used on TVLine, but why quote that headline? It seems neutral, but speculating about the death of characters on TV shows can rile up a storm and passionate reactions and will never fail to get attention (call it an attention honeypot). My first thought just reading the headline here was, more Hook angst ahead, but it’s about another character for a change. But TVLine’s speculation about Happy is all based on one incident and yellow press style sensationalization of it, it’s not the least bit about story development. For the characters from other shows mentioned in the TVLine “dead pool” (their wording) they at least draw their speculation from the shows’ stories themselves, as shallow as most of it though is.
Since all the Hook angst and discussions getting out of hand over it in season 02 I just have a problem with such death speculation headlines.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
What I saw on Twitter (before tweets got deleted, think though it’s documented somewhere on Tumblr) it was about the what and how Michael Colemann talked about shipping, the SwanQueen fraction of the fandom in particular, and that one could have the wrong impression, he were talking not just for himself. While the first can be filed as “just” bad PR, the latter is a problem at any work place. Could say: Now your place or be ready for some hot fire.
But I’ve done myself some PR work and worked in customer service, as customer service representative and supervisor, and I know it’s rather easy to drop a brick. On the other hand one can learn communication skills to handle things. People often think that that we don’t have to learn communication, it takes just some common sense to not talk stupid in public, avoid missunderstandings, and stay reasonable and calm, but they’re wrong. It would do a lot of good for even everyday private communication if there were (more) trainings at schools, colleges, universities and later in companies for everyone to learn to be more reflective about what they say and write, and give people tools to react better. It is even more important, when someone has to do it more professional, because their job brings them public attention, like for (successful) writers, actors.
Dealing with fans is a different thing for PR than dealing with media professionals. Things have changed and while some time back most of the contact was filtered by professional media people (bit of an excpetion: conventions), nowadays thanks to social media the filter is kinda dissipating. The bad thing is: no one is prepared for that. I don’t have the impression, that producers and production companies, not even actor agents are really giving it that much thought (and that goes as well for other entertainment industries, although musicians are used to a bit more contact). I don’t know if there are shows having a PR and social media professional not only keeping an eye on things for the show but as well are supporting cast and crew to navigate the wild waters of social media, but if there are, they are not doing that much of a good job. Of course they could make it simple and have the policy, no talks on social media about work, but that would be no good PR either, not in entertainment bizz.
Aat least OUaT doesn’t seem to have a professional to support them, what happened there on Twitter was a collective fail of cast and crew in my opinion, not just Michael Coleman dropping a brick. But he will be eventually the one to take the fall for it, somewhat rightly, his tone was off. Might agree, that some fans are illusional to hope for some ships to ever sail on the show but that it is nevertheless fine, that they sail in fan creations – but how Coleman said some things and reacted was at best clumsy. Clumsy though is some of what Adam Horowitz for example says on Twitter as well in my opinion.
It’s not just Twitter and Facebook. Remember the reactions to what Jennifer Morrison said in an interview at the ComicCon this year. Some hot waters on social media after that as well. Word spreads faster and louder through social media, something we have to learn to deal with.
Think it would do some TV shows and maybe movies series do good to employ a fan liaison (officer). I know of some football (soccer for you US folks) clubs having that, they are a contact between fans and club (in this case it would be between fans and show, cast and crew), providing information and help, bring word from the fans to cast and crew, eventually even have an open ear for helping with problems inside of fandoms (like bullying). And there are some projects working on getting a grip at some of the ugly sides of soccer fandoms. It’s different from doing the usual PR. Fans of TV shows are not yet there to bash their heads in real, or the heads of cast and crew, but cyber bullying sure is a problem, can seriously harm people, and should be adressed. I am convinced it would make a difference if you have just some non-personal show account to contact or if there are people with faces and names as contact, and it would be a relief for the cast and crew if it’s not just them.
Instead of starting a reasonable conversation about fandom and use of social media, the good professional (?) media have nothing better to do than to sensationalize the incident here and speculate about Michael Coleman getting the boot for it. What a fail. Of course it’s not their job to diffuse, but it makes them look not good either to eventually add more fuel to the fire. But, hey, those yellow-press buzz sites might even thrive on fandom fractions getting at each other throats. The worst publicity is no publicity, right, they get the klicks they want and need.
But do we do any better with some of the headlines we’re using here for threads to get attention? No offense, as I said, communication is something we unfortunately don’t learn as much as we should. Just want to nudge reflection here.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
Just for clearity: Main character and regular cast are not one and the same thing, it can be sometimes confusing. Regular cast doesn’t mean, that the actor is used on every episode and always gets major screentime, it just means that an actor is meant to be in most episodes, and has to be mostly available for the show (they can eventually do other projects, but being a regular sets priorities). Recurring cast are people booked for a number of episodes, and it can be even for most of the season, and the character they play can even be a major character in a story arc (like Pan has been the past episodes, or Cora before), but they have more freedom to do other things. Meanwhile having a contract as regular doesn’t necessarily mean the role is a major character, or a protagonist of the show, still can be more of a supportive role (and probably not going to make friends with that, but I would say Belle, Hook, Neal, Henry are still more supportive characters than story protagonists)
Explained that and more about characters and contracts a while ago in the OUaT-glossar.
Are we discussing the contract status of actors or more the function / role / importance of a character for the story, rest of this season, next season? Those are in my opinion two different things, despite that one can influence the other.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
Not sure if religion is that different. Most of the times magic is something that is not easily available for everyone, it’s something only a small number of people are able to do. So for many the wishes for riches, health, youth, a long live still are very much out of reach, they can’t do it themselves and they can’t afford to buy it either. More importantly I doubt that the wish for making sense of things, of life is any lessened by magic. People still wonder about their fate, who is responsible, what makes sense, what is the purpose of their lives. Religions have origins in times people believed very much in magic. For many here in our world science and most of technology is pretty close to magic.
A single person can wield more power on her/his own with magic though, no need for an army, a huge number of servants, so it might be easier to oppress technology advancement, and in a more positive interpretation, the leaders could use magic to satisfy many without the need for tech. Don’t think that magic per se hampers innovations of new and more effective tools and technology. Magic itself is only a tool.
Outside of the logic of fiction: Don’t think that magic realms have to be medieval, we just picture them that way most of the times, because we are convinced, that with our modern tech and science there would be no place for magic. Magic is imagined as a part of past and more “primitive” times or of fairy tales, which out of no good reason are so often pictured to play out in medieval surroundings, in an actually romanticised image of medieval. And we might keep it that way, because we like to escape our worlds at times, create something very different from everyday experience.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
How do you get someone who’s in Limbo out of Limbo is the question?
Aurora, Mulan and Phillip might be able to answer that question.
It was “just” Phillip’s soul they had to retrieve, but their story could now tie in nicely.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
Sharing personality type with Emma.
Interesting, Emma was the character that got me interested in the show, besides the prospect of fairy tales in a modern version.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
Just a few thoughts about magic (and guess should claim the title of defender of the Blue Fairy):
Using magic to do good for others or to do something selfish and thus eventually bad for others, is not alone what distinguishes good from dark magic. Neither does what emotional energy you tap into, more negative (anger, hate, fear) or positive (love, compassion, empathy). That is how I see it.
Good magic knows limits, practicing good magic means to set or accept limits to what you can do with magic, and to use it only limited.
Dark magic knows no limits, practicing dark magic means to question and eventually deny, that there are limits, and use it without limits.
Because of accepting and staying in limits good magic looks less powerful than dark magic, although it in itself might be more powerful.The Blue Fairy follows rules and is strict about rules, her magic is limited and used in limited ways. Rules can be annoying and sometimes feel unfair and like you’re kept from doing good for others, it might look like you even have no interest in helping someone in situations, but power without control can easily become destructive (as can be overly rigid rules though, when rules exist merely for the sake of rules, but that I don’t see with the Blue Fairy).
Pan made his own rules, breaking them whenever it pleased him, and was able to do pretty much everything (even to a degree cheat aging and death, and he himself was convinced he could do it, although he fails in the end).
Cora didn’t care about rules and used magic to get whatever she wanted (or tried to).
Regina/Evil Queen didn’t care much about limits either, but was somewhat limited by her own emotions (love and hate, her own ambivalence probably hindering to fully tap into one or the other), making her magic a bit wonky.
Rumple/Dark One believed in one rule, that all magic has a price, but when you’re willing to pay any price, magic has no limits.
Love might be the most powerful (good) magic of all, but has limits, like it doesn’t seem to work, when the other person doesn’t recognize the love.Don’t see a lack of good magic in OUaT, magic is ambivalent, and the solutions are not to be found in using magic, but in experiencing it (as in the magic of love, which one can’t use in a good sense, only give and embrace in a good way).
1.-Abandoned child who grows up with a smith are usually the stuff for heroism in fairy tales, fantastic literature, etc… from Sigfrid on The Song of Nibelungs, to Gendry in A song of Ice and Fire. I wonder what lies behind Malcolm’s childhood, the history of the smith (more than his real father, to be honest) I mean, it looks like a deliberate chose from writers part, it is a standar tropo…
In the Song of Nibelungs Sigfrid is no abandoned child nor growing up with a (black-) smith, that is told in other tales of Sigfrid or Sigurd and the Nibelungensaga, namely the Völsunga saga and the Thidrekssaga. Just clarifying that, so people know, which tales to look into. As much as Sigfrid was portrayed in all tales as heroic he was as well a bit of an ambivalent character. From a more modern point of view some of Sigfrid’s deeds where rather unheroic (helping his king to take his wife by force for example, nothing that would be as acceptable for a good hero nowadays, thankfully, although one can say, he paid with his life for that in the end – but Sigfrid is not the only hero who in traditional and classical tales, mythology, fairy tales is treating women less in the manner of a gentle man without harming the hero status).
It stroke me as interesting as well, that they chose to bring Malcolm in connection with a blacksmith, the abandoned son motif though I perceived mostly as the curse of the males of the Stiltskin family.
Heroes just can’t have had happy childhoods. But neither do villains. One can think, that having a rather happy childhood is a huge obstacle in becoming a full hero or even an important villain. Being normal is boring and sucks. 😉
Smiths, blacksmiths particular, were masters of fire and seemingly able to change the nature of things (turning more or less a piece of rock into a weapon for example), which gave them something mystical and magical.
Hephaestus, the Greek god of blacksmith, craftsmen, fire and volcanoes created on instructions of Zeus Pandora and her pithos (Pandora’s box).
Quite sure the writers did it deliberately, but I’m not sure how deep their thinking goes about mentioning a blacksmiths as master of young Malcolm. By now have the impression, they are a bit too much in love with what I would call pop references, nothing profound.
re 2. The spinster as Norns, fates, the mythological use of spinning and weaving as representation of destiny. Possible. Just one more thing: find it interesting that in English spinster means foremost a woman, but general a person who spins, but as well an unmarried woman being beyond marrying age. If you have to take care of destiny, you just can’t take care of a family, can’t have it all. 😛
And the fathers in OUaT so often abandoned their kids, want to or have to.
Finding true love might be actually easier than building and keeping a family in the OUaT universe.
re 3. Don’t know about comparing the shadow to concepts of helping spirits or spirit guides. Think the idea of spirit guides is of a more benevolent nature, so would if think more for an evil spirit posing as spirit guide. Although seen from Malcolm’s POV the spirit was benevolent and helping him to fulfill his wish of (eternal) youth. But I saw the shadow more in the line of the archetype shadow CG Jung worked with.
re 4. The island as labyrinth of Pan’s making, or maybe should more say as a maze of Pan’s making. Don’t see a connection between labyrinth/maze and fragmented ego and neither see, that monster and tricksters necessarily have a fragmented ego. Their ego’s can be quite coherent. Unless they are eventually tragic heroes cursed to live as monsters, but that is not Pan. Labyrinths are more of a journey of a hero to his or her self, not an easy path to find, and eventually they have to overcome a monster to make it through. If anything a fragmented ego stands at the beginning of this journey, or might be a stage in between, but in the end it is meant to lead to a centered and grown ego – or you can get lost in the maze and never find your way. Had not the impression, that Pan was lost in his own labyrinth, or jungle. The island was a labyrinth in the sense of a journey to their selves for the Nevengers (sometimes known as the JR6) and somewhat Henry.
re 5. The idea of the Cronus-Zeus myth. Doesn’t bode that well to me, if thinking of the whole story beginning with Uranus and how Zeus avoids being overthrown as well, by keeping his children less powerful than him. Zeus was prophesied, that children he would have with Metis (a Titan and first wife of Zeus) would eventually be powerful enough to overthrow him – so he tricked Metis and swallowed her (but she was already pregnant with Athena, which then though wasn’t born by her, but leaped from Zeus’s head). One could also say, that Greek mythology kinda ends before any children of Zeus found the power to take over. The winner takes it all and tells the tale, but that was no Greek myth anymore.
The Greek mythology of Uranus-Cronus-Zeus paints the sad image, that one generation has to defeat and take down the parent generation to form and rule their own world. It is understood as standing for cultural changes, if you like, a society, group of people advancing. What is alike is that Malcolm/Pan similar to Cronus gets rid off his offspring to keep his power, or more to (re-) gain power, aka youth. Rumple though gives up his power to overcome his father, something Zeus didn’t do.
Quite obviously the writers are going for a sort of new beginning, a new but perhaps different cycle, not in the sense of reboot (as Rumple once offered his son), but in the sense of a new, different level, which could be called progress, an advancement.
Pan was meant to be a big bad, so he had to have some impact. And really an impact, changes in characters, not mostly just the setting (found the impact of Cora disappointing although it gave some insights).
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
A selfish sociopath.
Sorry, had to smile reading this. Still trying to imagine a selfless sociopath 😉
I bet it was Pan who went back and made sure everyone branded Rumpel as the town coward. I bet all the horrible things that happened to Rumpel stem from Pan
His life is just so tragic, it overwhelms me.Not shedding tears for all of Rumple’s life, as an adult he made terrible and bad decisions. A tragic, traumatic childhood can explain but it doesn’t excuse / justify behavior IMO. Rumple killed a man just because he yelled at Bae, and he killed their maid because she might haven been able to somehow give away the secret of the dagger. These killings were not tragic for Rumple but for the people he killed and their families. With the magic at his hand Rumple didn’t have to kill these people, but he did, and even seemed to enjoy it for the moment. Rumble might find redemption, but he did terrible things all on his own (and no, the Curse of the Dark One doesn’t excuse it for me either, he still had an idea of right and wrong).
Watching the scenes between Malcolm and young Rumple, think the writers meant Malcolm to have at least a bit of positive affection of some sort for kid Rumple. I might not make all sense to me, but find it hard to read the scenes any other way than that Malcolm somewhat loved Rumple at first, for a while. Malcolm already showed signs of a psychopathic personality (selfishness, a certain charm, glibness, pompous sense of self, lack of shame and remorse, lack of empathy, living on the edge, poor impulse control, unreliability and lying) when Rumple was a child, but there were glimpses of positive affection for his son. It was probably a twisted love, more a love of having a son than love for his son, and it became more and more a desire for Rumple’s love and admiration, but one can say, it was something. Although people with psychopathic personality can make it look like they are feeling love for someone, they might even want to believe it themselves, but that doesn’t mean, they actually are feeling love.
I am not sure, why the Spinsters took Rumple in, though quite sure not for money, but wouldn’t exclude Malcolm selling him to them. Think Malcolm very much lied to Rumple about coming back, but he still might have convinced himself at that point, that it was very much for the sake of the boy. Like Malcolm later in Neverland tried to make himself feel better about what he was doing by rambling about, how he was not the father Rumple needed, that he’s too weak.
Was there anything of the little bit of love left Malcolm once had for Rumple? That I don’t think. After centuries of exploiting others and being able to pretty much do whatever pleased him think there was not the slightest bit of positive affection left in Pan. Now Rumple was just in his way. For the sake of the story and continuity they had to make whatever Pan might have felt for Felix a sort of love, but still doubt that Pan was even the tiny bit of capable of loving anyone at this point, maybe not even himself.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
