Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I thought it was just green and that i was just seeing yellow because logic
Definitely yellow. There’s some yellow-red apples in that bowl. I too would have imagined that Zelena is more of a Granny Smith kinda gal.
Maybe yellow is supposed to signify Gold?
You mean the symbolism is around “Golden delicious”? I just can’t seem to find a good gif for *recoils in horror,* but *recoils in horror.*
[adrotate group="5"]if I was, say, 10 instead of 30 I don’t know that I’d get the implications of Arthur’s roofie on Gwen.
Agreed. You could probably make it a “teaching moment” to an extent if you watch it with a younger family member. But come to think of it, I would also not underestimate kids, to paraphrase @TheWatcher. I used to watch OUAT with my niece, who was a late-pre-teen when she started. And she eventually “grew out” of OUAT because, essentially, she felt the show was wrapped up in romanticizing bullies (that was right around when Hook came to prominence).
This is a sample of one, but I often feel like kids are actually more attuned to and have stakes in the question of justice, fairness, and retribution. It’s really adults who are more concerned with redemption and forgiveness. In this sense I do think OUAT is more aimed at an adult viewership.
As much as I don’t want it to be true…I can guarantee the Evil Queen wasn’t there to dust off Rumple’s counter top. A “family” show they said…
Yeah, she’s definitely insinuating this, but I also get this sort of slightly disappointed vibe from her when Zelena hints that there’s more. My assumption is that she’s actually referencing the kiss in the shop and her request that Rumple helps her.
But I’m also thinking the writers are leaving this deliberately open-ended, so it can be interpreted one way or another. *shrug* Could go either way I guess.
On a different note, I wonder if there is a significance to the fact that EQ is holding a yellow apple. I mean that just seems so much less threatening than her iconic red ones.
I think all of this depends on what you understand a “family show” to be. The media industry has standardized content rating systems. OUAT is certainly not a children oriented show (that would have a Y,Y7, or a G rating). OUAT’s rating is PG, which alerts parents or other caregivers that they might find the program content not suitable for younger children, but it is left up to the parents to decide how “children” are defined. The MPAA used to define this more strictly, as children who are “pre-teenagers.” In other words, a PG rating is not prescriptive (this is family show, you should watch it with your kids), but defined negatively (this is a show that will likely not traumatize your teenagers, but might freak out your younger children. You decide). Conceptually, these are completely different orientations to the audience.
So, strictly speaking from the industry’s rating system, they have 0 moral responsibility to portray any kind of higher standard. It’s not that kind of show.
I must say, OUAT would be missing a massive opportunity if they didn’t delve into the mythology here. It would make so much sense if Rumple’s mother was in fact Atropos, of the Three Fates (it would frame Rumple’s predilection for spinning himself in an interesting way). In other words, there could actually be a connection to what is effectively Atropos’s shears.
But just to be clear, can someone please explain to me the mechanism of the shears, as it’s been stated? As I understand it, if saviorness, but also other, more mundane aspects of one’s life are predetermined to some extent (what we might call fate), the shears “hack” the system, producing more opportunities for free will. And I agree with the theory that it looks like they need to be used voluntarily, otherwise why would Jafar not simply snip at Aladdin, and voila, problem solved?
If so, then I don’t see how Rumple would use the shears on Belle. He might try to convince her to do it, but I doubt Belle would be particularly amenable to his arguments.
Here’s another whacko theory: Rumple uses the shears on himself in a bid to change the trainwreck that is his relationship, and accidentally releases the darkness. He’s now left powerless, and the darkness, as we know, doesn’t just disappear, but goes and finds itself a new vessel. The perfect candidate at the moment is Belle’s unborn child because it is literally the product of that darkness, at least partially. At that point, I believe the human rules of gestation no longer apply, and Morfetus manifests as Dark One incarnate, with Rumple now powerless, and Emma having to fight him. In the process, Dark One incarnate will probably kill Rumple, thus fulfilling the prophecy. It would at least explain why Morfetus is wearing a dark one cloak, and trying to kill Emma.
Before this season and before Regina split herself, EVERYONE FORGAVE HER when she started doing good things. She slaughtered an entire village for goodness sake. She used light magic to save everybody from Zelena in 3b and from the second dark curse in season 3a. And maybe not now, but a season or two ago, MOSTLY EVERYONE FORGAVE Rumple for his past actions as the dark one as soon as he started spilling to Belle how much he loved her. MOSTLY EVERYONE FORGAVE Zelena after all the stuff she pulled (SHE KILLED NEAL!!!) just because she seemed like someone who actually cared about her child and she killed Hades and saved Regina and everyone for that matter.
See, I’m not sure who “everyone” is in your analysis. The GA? The fandom? People on this forum? From what I can tell, for most of these characters, people are split, and you’ll get both detractors and defenders across the spectrum. Now, is this forum a bit skewed against Hook? Yeah, there seem to be a lot of vocal critics here among the regulars. But he’s certainly not the only one. Plenty of people can’t stand Rumple and have no use for Zelena. Regina’s different a bit because her arc was so protracted. So “everyone” seems to be a bit too generalizing.
But let’s actually look at the in-story mechanics, and the reward system that’s inbuilt into the show itself. Villains, we were told, don’t get happy endings. In OUAT, “reward” is very often equated with getting to be with your romantic interest. Even our partially redeemed villains, like Regina and Zelena don’t get that. Robin and Hades are as dead as doornails, as far as we know. Those ships have sailed. You might say that Regina still gets to be with Henry and finds a family — true. But, in the OUAT-verse, that’s only a partial reward. Zelena gets Robyn, but again, that’s only a partial reward. Rumple’s extremely unlikely to end up with Belle, although the writers will keep yo-yoing those two to squeeze more drama out of it.
Anyway, this works fairly consistently with all our villains so far, except for Hook. Hook gets the girl. Not just that, but he gets the girl and the girl worries that her dying will rob him of his happy ending. His redemption arc, as @sciencevsmagic mentioned, is really done post factum, almost as an afterthought (or, more likely, as a result of audience feedback) and it’s, from a narrative standpoint, completely facile.
I know, this is a matter of how each person relates to a character, so there’s always a kind of bias. You’re right, if you’re a Rumple or Regina fan, you’re going to bat for them and rationalize their actions. But that’s different from how the writers are treating the characters, and what they are rewarding (and what they’re not).
So why am I singling Hook out? Two reasons: if you look at the writing, and the internal logic of villainy/redemption/reward, Hook is clearly the creator’s pet. If they wanted to be consistent, Emma would actually dump his butt. They could get back together eventually, but villains, on OUAT, even reformed ones, don’t get everything they want. Unless they’re Hook. And minimally, even if Emma forgives him, which is all fine and dandy, good on her — this shouldn’t be about his happy ending — it should be about hers. Because of what she happens to want. But just a few episodes ago she was wringing her hands over how her death might short-change Hook. So this brings me to my second reason of why I’m singling out Hook. It’s because, as @sciencevsmagic said, he embodies a particularly noxious form of masculinity: entitled, self-centered, and sexually aggressive. It’s not because he’s male, as you suggested — not all men, right? It’s because he’s an entitled bro, and I happen to dislike entitled bros. In part, because in the real world, that’s the sort of ‘character’ who tends to get off scott-free for all past misdeeds, as well as “get the girl” and all sorts of other social rewards and accolades. It’s also the type of character who, when held accountable for say, a sexual assault, gets people to defend him along the lines “but he’s got his whole life ahead of him, think of his athletic career, this would ruin him!”
Does that mean that such a person, and the character that stands for them, is absolutely irredeemable? Not necessarily. And in the hands of competent writers, I would actually be interested in seeing an effective and compelling redemption arc for a kind of social type that I personally find thoroughly loathsome. But what they’re doing doesn’t accomplish that.
We can certainly debate the merits (or their lack) of EvilGold or whatever ship that would be, but can we just step back for a second? OUAT press releases have a notoriously tenuous relationship to the actually existing plot, and usually emphasize the potential for drama.
I mean, what budding romance, exactly? Based on the acting, Rumple looks like he’s enjoying EQ’s advances as much as he might an ingrown toenail. And based on dialogue, didn’t EQ just flat out say she wasn’t actually interested in Rumple, after he called her out on it?
What I think is happening here is that A&E need Rumple to get on board with helping the heroes. Usually that happens when one of the heroes blackmails him. So my guess is that Regina somehow “recorded” the kiss and is going to use that to strong-arm Rumple into helping their cause, which is the usual MO.
Ok, this was a bit confusing, especially if we have several timelines happening at once, which seems likely. Still, the show is done incredibly well, both in terms of aesthetics and intriguing story.
So, in the conversation between Dr. Ford and Dolores when he asks her whether she’s been hearing voices again, she states that her contact with Arnold was 34 years and some change ago. I assume that this is at the same time (or around the same time) that MiB started coming to the park. But since we know this is a lie (she tells as much to her invisible interlocutor once Ford leaves), then does this suggest that she’s going off script, but more subtly this time?
It seems like the maze is some kind of bread-crum programming left by, presumably, Arnold, to lead hosts to self-awakening. But then both MiB and Dr. Ford seem to know about it. This is confusing.
Interesting to see the underlying antagonism between Dr. Ford and MiB. If, as the theory goes, Lawrence and William’s adventures are what precipitated the subsequent changes in the park, including military-style oversight of the hosts, then it seems to make sense that something happens to Lawrence (lets face it, he has it coming).
– Logan and William have a conversation in passing about what happened to Arnold (who apparently killed himself!?) and it seems like it didn’t necessarily happen that long ago. It seems like a fairly recent event they’re discussing.
Was the body ever found, or did Arnold just “disappear”?
Curious to see Maeve’s story play out. The way they subtly hinted at how she kept dying on purpose to meet the “shades” is interesting.
So because of bad past actions, Hook isn’t allowed to get redemption because he’s male? What about all the bad stuff Rumple has done? We constantly forgive him. What about the EQ/Regina? We forgave her.
No, you misunderstand me. Women who are overtly sexualized do not get much of a pass on this show. Men who are (Hook) do. It’s not about good or bad action, it’s about the connection between sexuality and moral bankruptcy, and how that cuts in a very particular way along gender lines. As to Regina, you will notice that the more redeemed she is, the more demure she becomes. This isn’t an accident, I don’t think.
Edited to add: this comment is not an anti-Hook rant, so please do not interpret it this way. It’s an anti-medieval gender ideology rant. Hence the Torquemada reference.
Meh. This wasn’t an awful episode, and a lot of individual scenes and micro-plot points were actually surprisingly good and consistent with some of the show’s theme. But I’m still not getting the impression that any of this is coming together in any sort of coherent way.
6/10
Liked:
I didn’t hate Hook for once. He’s been given an actually solid redemption arc this season, and his relationship with Henry and other characters is being fleshed out in a much more convincing way. That being said, there’s something that I feel a bit queasy about in here (more in dislikes).
EQ is always a delight. But I also like Regina in this episode — she’s got a good dose of sass despite the EQ extraction
I actually enjoyed Nemo’s story, and thought the actor did a great job.
Mixed:
Something is so deeply odd about the Jasmine/Aladdin story. I’m actually thinking now that maybe Jasmine, not Aladdin, is Jafar. The way she’s telling the story — about how Agrabah is gone — I don’t know, something’s not gelling here. If Jafar wanted to rule over Agrabah, it makes no sense that he would obliterate it into oblivion. Unless he somehow teleported it somewhere else? In any case, something in that relationship is sketchy. Clearly, Jasmine wants to get Aladdin to do something, or needs him for something, but it’s unclear what.
Disliked:
Seriously, Adam and Eddy? I retract my previous diagnosis that this show is written by toddlers. Toddlers aren’t that afraid of girls. This is a show written by 12 year old boys in a 40 year old man suit. At this point, I don’t know where the message is:
a) Evil women use their sexuality to further their devious and evil plans, and therefore are evil. OR
b) Women who use their sexuality in obvious ways must be evil.
At this point, I can’t think of a single evil female character on this show who wasn’t very obviously sexual or sexualized. EQ, Cruella, Zelena are outright rapey. Maleficient and even the Blind Witch were very obviously sexualized (until Maleficient mommyfied). The only redemptive part of this is that I’m going to assume that this proves Blue Fairy is shady.
Meanwhile, the guy who was cracking rape jokes a few seasons ago gets a protracted redemption arc. Really, A&E? That’s what you call a feminist show? If anyone needs me, I’ll be over there, dusting off my Torquemada outfit for the next witch burning. #nastywoman
I’m going to continue my interpretation of the great social critique embedded in the relationship between OUAT and the MacGuffin. After their brilliant reflection on the mutual interdependencies between humans and nature exemplified in the quest for the mind altering mushroom, and the ways in which man-becomes-nature captured was by the arborescence of Merlin and whichever dwarf it was… After the more recent reflection of humans’ ambivalence towards technology, captured in the threat posed by Zeus’s lightning bolt (at once a metaphor for electricity and nuclear fusion) to obliterate the very essence of humanity… We have come to a new philosophical quandary, brought to you by Adam and Eddy and co. I can’t yet decide whether we’re back to the environmental problem (the issue of what to prune next), or whether this is more of a reflection on run-away capitalism trying to fleece everyone and everything. Or is it about the ways in which outward appearances — symbolized by the haircut, and the professional “shears” (golden no less) — are vacuous when they don’t reflect deeper inner peace. Stay tuned.
