Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
These are all really good points–one thing that stands out with Maeve in this episode is that her “motherhood” trait carries over to her work as a madam.
Yes. Then one had to wonder if this is a combination of her high empathy and loyalty traits, or whatever these were. And one wonders if they redesign their personalities radically between roles.
What do you think is happening to Teddy? Is he rewriting himself after Ford gave him his “carry on directive”? He’s becoming a lot more ruthless, and I wonder if that’s the result of not having actually been properly “rebooted,” as far as we know, from his pretty horrific experiences.
Also, what did you make of Host!Mini Ford killing the dog? This is clearly foreshadowing something about Arnold’s master plan, but I wonder what…
[adrotate group="5"]The other tale that this story reminds me of is about a princess and her seven brothers… they turn into swans all day long flying about, at sunset they turn back into human being. She has to break the curse by a certain day or they stay swans forever. She has to sew each one a shirt without help from anyone. She makes the shirts and put the shirts on her brothers changing them back into humans. She did not complete one of the shirts so one brother ends up with a swan wing instead of an arm.
Yep, that is indeed the plot of Swan Lake.
Which is a “creative borrowing” of a foundational origin story from a southeast Siberian indigenous group. The story’s called xYn-shubuun, which means man-bird or human-bird. It’s about a huntsman who finds a swan, who, as such things go, turns into a beautiful woman. He convinces her to marry him, and they live together and have a bunch of children. Eventually, as she grows older, she requests he give her back her swan outfit so she can turn back into a swan and rejoin her siblings in the sky. He complies, and she turns back into a swan and leaves to be with her swan family, while the humans begin to worship the swan as the progenitor of their clan.
Can’t help you with the Native American story.
Ok, this is going to be a bit brief, but wow, I loved that episode. Maeve is easily one of my favorite characters on the show right now, and seeing her evolve from utter existential, almost animal terror at the discovery of her own past etchings of the shades to this cunning manipulation of the two technicians in the room is so satisfying.
I am also really intrigued what effects an enhancement of perception combined with a decrease in loyalty and pain will result in. Will she become a sociopath? Will she develop a mission for herself? That scene of her discovering herself and the little girl in the sizzle reel is so fascinating, because I had to remind myself that this memory and experience wasn’t actually any more real than the others. But then, this makes you think — would have her suffering at having motherhood literally programmed into her, an the sheer horror of losing her daughter been any less real? Is that something that can truly be undone? And I kept thinking, I am fetishizing motherhood here? Clearly, her new story about being a brothel keeper has the same ontological status, but the show seems to be subtly choosing to emphasize one experience as more authentic than the other. After all, is it as a brothel keeper that she has her “awakening” happen. And she actually uses her position to enable it, while remaining undetected to the forces that be, it seems. Anyway, food for though.
– I am actually curious about what the hosts are made of. The tech mentions that they’re not physically all that different from humans these days. We get a sense of maybe some kind biological 3d printing — done with the same biological components, but the software is obviously added later. But they are also obviously quite resistant to damage. I though it was interesting to hear Ford comment about how what the hosts gained in verisimilitude they lost in grace from their robotic form.
– The maze DID remind me of the Minotaur, @RG. But it also looks a lot like the show’s logo, and that image of the bioprinted host in a circle, which also recalls the Vitruvian Man. So there is some heavy symbolism there about the ways in which all humanity is, in some senses, manufactured. But I think it is both a physical and a symbolic entity. Is anyone else reminded of a geoglyph?
I think I have another issue with the Rumple storyline, apart from retcons of the character (what @AKA just wrote above), of his relationships, and of the sheer repetitiveness of it all.
It’s the shears. I know I know. I’m like, hung up on these. But seriously, they annoy me: this is another one of those meta-MacGuffins (like the author’s pen and the “put the potential for darkness in the basket” Lily plotline). Essentially, OUAT’s MacGuffins come in two flavors:
– the in-story MacGuffin that allows for some magical gimmick to happen (the sands of avalone, or the magic mushroom, or the curse of shattered sight etc etc)
– the story-influencing MacGuffin that’s supposed to change the narrative itself. That’s sort of what the shears do supposedly — because by cutting off one’s fate, or un-savioring someone, that changes the actual mechanics of the storytelling. And considering their track record with the pen, and the whole concept of the author, the show runners do a disastrous job at handling these. The only person who has any right to have any sort of relationship to that meta-level MacGuffin is Emma, because she is, literally, the embodiment of the story itself.
I think I’ve said this every season since S4, but I really do think they’re gearing up to kill him off.
They might. It very much depends I think on whether this is the last season and whether RC wants to leave. I would have agreed with you two seasons ago, but I am increasingly thinking that these writers don’t actually see that they’re not doing anything interesting with a character. Or rather, I don’t believe they care. Robin was disposable. Rumple? Not as much. This has been a problem with Rumple since after S3B, and they’ve been doing this over and over and over, with seemingly no effort at all to break the cycle. So my only conclusion is: they are actually way more cynical than we give them credit for. Robert Carlyle brings eyeballs, and eyeballs must translate into profits from ads in some way, yes? The repetitiveness of Rumple’s storyline doesn’t seem to deter viewers beyond expected attrition. So why mess with a good thing, right?
This has been a general feature of OUAT. Unless the writers are really invested in a character (for example Regina and Hook), they are content with redoing storylines, down to outright self-plagiarism.
This is exactly my feeling, and it is almost more infuriating than watching episodes that have no glimmers of greatness in them
Here’s a speculation: I think what we’re seeing this season is the individual writers to whom A&E outsource episodes and storylines are excited about working on their individual strands, and put their best foot forward into writing the dialogue and crafting their little part of the story. And occasionally, the show comes up with interesting ideas, like the sleeping curse time share they just did. This is what we’re seeing with that sense of “wow, that scene was terrific and so well written! Why doesn’t the whole thing gel?”
I think the whole thing doesn’t gel because A&E are creatively bankrupt. And the reason for that is that they never bothered with world-building, so now they’re just confusing themselves. I don’t know if it’s just show exhaustion (3 seasons too long, in my opinion), or if that’s just A&E’s running out of ideas for the JJ Abrams fanfiction, which is really what OUAT is. *shrug* Sorry, I think I’m coming across as a bit vinegary, but I share your exact frustration. It’d be ok if it were bad across the board, but there is clearly both writing and acting labor that goes into it. Just not, as I see it, from the people who are meant to have the “big vision.”
I really don’t know what to make of this season. On the one hand, some elements of this were really terrific. Snowing was actually touching and beautiful, and had a lot of throw back to season 1 that didn’t feel like just lip service. Lana’s sass is always fun to watch. But as a whole, the story itself doesn’t hang for me at all.
– The sleeping curse time share. I thought there would be some twist to the kiss — like she poisoned Snow’s lips or something — but this was actually better.
– Snowing were great, and I didn’t even mind the flashbacks.
– Hook’s little motivational speech. It was actually about Emma, and not about his man pain.
– Belle’s speech. Though the whole “he’s not being the man he could be” made me laugh. Yes, dear. That would be because the writers have no idea how to develop Rumple’s character beyond using him to move the plot along and power-up whichever baddie is currently creating problems. If anything’s been breaking the 4th wall for me with this show lately it’s the Rumple story line. It feels completely contrived and nonsensical, and, frankly, uninteresting.
At least the MacGuffin was quickly taken out of commission.
Confused:
Blue Fairy. She can aggrandize at will? And why was she hanging out in the woods with Snow? It seems completely out of the blue, no pun intended. It’s like they remembered “oh, wait, Keegar Connor Tracy is still on the payroll, lets utilize her”
The woodsman or whatever his name was. That was one ridiculous character. Especially his helmet. Seems like it would restrict his vision a whole lot, and only protect the top part of his head. Not sure why that would be a werewolf’s first line of attack, unless he’s after zombie werewolves.
Disliked
The whole Rumple/EQ mojo. Why? What’s the motivation for Rumple? Where is this past attraction coming from — it was never there! Wasn’t the whole point that Rumple kept Regina at arm’s length lest he be used to power the curse? The relationship was very much teacher/student in the way I read it. Making it about sexual attraction retcons a lot of what I thought was actually interesting about the show and simplifies what used to be a really neat dynamic for me.
Zelena. Why is she turning green? Aside from the technical aspect of greening in SB, wouldn’t she also still be grieving Hades to some extent? Her True Love died pretty recently at her own hand. Wasn’t she actually in love with the dude? Ugh, I can’t with this whole silly soap opera side plot, this part of the writing looks like bad fanfiction.
I don’t know. None of Rumple’s story right now makes sense to me. Not Morfetus, not this absurd business with the shears, not Rumple’s motivation to hook up with EQ. I guess the only glimpse of what I recall the character to be about is this being afraid to fail but it’s been 5 seasons of this and is so repetitive at this point that I am not sure why this is supposed to be compelling writing.
Belle’s speech was nice, again recalling some of the Rumbelle dynamic but the writers are putting 0 effort into psychological development. At this point Belle and Rumple are simply props to move the plot along, create drama, and power-up EQ. Whose point I also honestly don’t see.
Its funny with this season, some strands of the story are really good but there’s also a lot that just seems completely contrived. I am not even sure what Rumple’s point is as a character anymore other than a plot prop.
Some great stories can be riddled with violence and amorality (cf: something like Breaking Bad or GoT) but these actions have consequences and are dealt with by the writers. They are not shoved go background of the story, handwaving them away as if they never happened or don’t matter.
What I think OUAT fails to do is define a consistent moral codex for the world they built. Instead they are peddling “this is unmarked, universal morals” along the lines of “this is a show about hope and family.” If they had world-built it with thoughtfully developed and stable moral coordinates, this could have been a really powerful, interesting show precisely because of the potential encounter between a world with magic, and one without. Anyway, these needn’t be my moral coordinates — in the same way that GoT or Breaking Bad aren’t. For me personally, it doesn’t need to reflect my politics/cultural views — I, for one, am happy to read or watch speculative fiction or actual non-fiction about radical difference, because it makes me think.
For example, @sciencevsmagic proposed this idea about Robin actually being a champion of the underclasses with a well-formulated message about what he was doing and why. It would have been especially fascinating if they had actually justified the crappy treatment of the peasants in EF with a logic of a kind of caste or estate system (as it was in medieval Europe). It would have been also very interesting to see how this would have played out in SB.
Anyway, in part, I think the problem is not simply bad morals, but an absence of firm and deliberate world building, with a robust meta-level conversation about that world woven into the storytelling. Well, that, and how they peddle their crappy morality under the guise of positive values. For example, the subtle “benign sexism” misrepresented as feminism annoys me. Not actually because OUAT has gender norms that I personally find problematic — someone else might not, after all. It’s the misrepresentation that I find exacerbating.
Grimmsistr wrote: What I mean by that is, often I think people are taking the show way too seriously. That’s not meant as a judgement, you can take the show as seriously as you want. Im only saying that- For me, it would be taking it too seriously. So it was meant as a question, as I wonder why people look at it that way. Taking it seriously is what makes people see all these bad morals, I think.
Look, I don’t think you meant your comment in a negative way, @Grimmsistr — I think what you’re saying is that if you’re not willing to suspend disbelief and critical thinking, and just enjoy the ride, you might be missing the sheer lighthearted campy enjoyment of the experience… BUT. Your argument sits a bit uncomfortably with me. In part because it reminds me of how people will defend a sexist/classist/racist joke by saying “hey, it’s just a joke, why can’t you have a good time and not go all social justice warrior on us.” That’s a type of silencing technique. Now, I’m pretty sure this isn’t how you meant your comment, and I actually sympathize with your project of wanting to rescue and celebrate the enjoyable elements of OUAT. It’s optimistic. But I’d be cautious about doing it the way you’re suggesting it here. This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t also try to just enjoy the show — I get what you’re saying. But I don’t think assuming a normative viewing experience based on imputed intent to the show runners is the way to do that. It actually dismisses the different types of experiences people might be bringing to the table as they engage with a work of fiction. What feels like inconsequential, unrealistic camp to some people, for others might hit a string — intentionally or not — and their response might be different, and more negative.
Lets take a non-OUAT example. A slapstick comedy about bullying might feel hilarious and totally inconsequential to a person who has never experienced bullying him/herself, but might feel devastating or minimally cringe-worthy to someone who has. A bad slasher flick, not intended to be taken seriously at all because it’s all over the top might be enjoyable to some people, but viscerally disturbing to others, depending on your tolerance for on-screen gore. A romance story where one of the mains is very sexually aggressive might be “hot” for some people, and triggering for others. You get the picture.
Now, I’m not saying that this means that OUAT, being a family show, should just be the plot equivalent of boiled cabbage. I’m saying that they could address some of the big, interesting, difficult issues that they seem to want to get on the table in a way that is thoughtful. I might even disagree with their conclusions or messages, or they might leave the take away point open ended and contradictory — that would be fine. but if it’s done in a thoughtful, interesting way, then I wouldn’t mind. But this isn’t how they go about it these days. It’s just plot plot shiny plot plot drama etc
– The villain is not always a person. It can be, and often is, unjust laws and socio-political systems.
This exactly. It’s funny how Season 1 did tackle that, to some extent, with Rumple’s storyline, with King George, and with the Dwarves/Fairies. But then the socio-political commentary that used to be quite interesting got totally eviscerated in favor of just staggering levels of “benevolent” classism, sexism, and racism. I attribute this to JJ Abrams’s influence wearing off.
