Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I still think Morpheus could be Jafar in disguise. And it was actually Jafar in Belle’s dream world. I refuse to believe it’s actually Morpheus under the hood.
Yeah. It’s the most random, out of left-field, and unconnected plot twist OUAT would have pulled off so far. One would have needed to actually develop Morpheus’s character for that to have any kind of emotional impact. Otherwise it’s like a bad detective story, where the murder is in fact committed by some totally random person that had nothing to do with anything up to that point.
I like your theory that Morpheus is Jafar. In fact, I like the idea that Jafar is body-snatching his way across SB. For all I know, he was the Oracle, is now Aladdin, and is about to be Morpheus. Seriously. Why not — we know he wants the destruction of all Saviors for whatever half-cocked reason the writers will come up with. So at least that makes some sense.
[adrotate group="5"]Especially this part. And the show could connect this to Rumple and how he knows about Saviors.
They could, but the probably forgot about that already.
So far, Jafar and Rumple are suspiciously peripheral to the story. Maybe there’s a plot reason for that.
Yes I would like to know why Jafar wants to rid the world of Saviors
Class warfare? Squashing the opposition? I honestly don’t know — they really need to stop with the abstractly malevolent villain. Villains are so much more compelling when they are concretely malevolent.
They said that one of the scenes was Evil Queen, the two dwarves, and the hooded figure. Her and the other fans on the Periscope kept saying they knew who it was, but refused to tell. But based on Kat’s filming recap, Giles filmed in the scene with Evil Queen and the dwarves. That on top of the other linked Tumblr post are enough evidence
Well, I’m convinced. But… why? Why is he walking around ex-utero, all grown up, and channeling Emperor Palpatine?
Well, come to think of it, I don’t know if I do…
It either suggests that Dr. Ford really does see the Hosts as robots (why move them out of a area of the park that won’t be visited) OR that he’s so egotistical that he expects the reality to conform to his expectations (a god visiting Eden must have all the players in their proper places) even if it accomplishes no goal except to swell his already large ego.
I am inclined to think that there’s more to Ford than a megalomaniacal God complex. It feels like he’s planning something massive – not just a new part of a narrative, but something actually ontologically threatening (though to whom, I don’t know) and that he’s arranging the different pieces on the board to make it all line up just so.
I actually have a theory that he’s an unreliable narrator when it comes to Albert. I also wonder if maybe they both were after the same thing — engineering AI sentience. But disagreed on method and ethics.
To the question is do you find any sort of Watsonian analysis fruitful with OUAT because it seems that the world building and characterizations are very inconsistent to the point where the only explanation is “things happen because A&E want it to happen”. What do you think?
Great question, and I think @sciencevsmagic brings up the really excellent point about strategic interpretation, depending on what your stakes are in analyzing a particular character or plot element.
Overall, though, a Watsonian analysis of OUAT is a thankless task because A&E and crew do such a half baked job at world-building. Consider, by contrast, something like Game of Thrones that has a robust and extremely detailed pre-built world that the show can refer to in adapting the plot of ASOIAF to the screen. There, it would make a lot of sense to try to analyze the motivations, often hidden, complex, and contradictory, of the different characters (or the layered results of various events) because the ground doesn’t shift from under you, unless that shift is planned. With OUAT? It’s like toddler storytelling: “no, it was a dragon, no, actually it was a unicorn, and they were in a castle, no on a pirate ship…” You get the picture.
Unfortunately, I suspect that Aladdin is really Aladdin (though the idea of him being Jafar is appealing.) There is something just a little bit awkward about this SB version of Aladdin, and I can’t put my finger on it — so maybe.
If that’s a plot hole, it’s a massive one (not just a continuity problem or retcon, but actually a total worldbuilding screw up). Surely, someone in the writers’ room would have picked up on it.
What if the shears actually don’t do anything, just like the Diamond in the Rough I don’t think did anything — it was just there to reveal Aladdin’s saviorhood. Maybe using the shears doesn’t actually do anything, but simply helps the person channel their wish to be rid of their powers? In that case it wouldn’t work on anyone but Emma, and Emma would have to use them herself. Dunno.
Whether or not this constitutes a healthy, adult relationship—and whether the romanticized aspect applies equally to all ships on the show–is the sticking point.
Yes, this. From last week, we’ve been all called upon to recoil in horror at Rumple’s high-handed antics. But Emma’s “I will watch the world burn just so that you live” or Hook’s current palming the shears for a rainy day are meant to be read as mildly misguided, but largely romantic gestures. Excuse me if I fail to swoon.
“When the rockets go up, who cares where they come down. It’s not my department, says Verner Von Braun.”
I like their tongue in cheek pop culture references. So far it’s done in a way that’s tasteful and entertaining.
Sean MacGuire was delightful. Timeless did with one episodic character what OUAT couldn’t do over seasons and seasons.
So, Rittenhouse is Big Brother and the Mob with Matrix powers? That’s good to know.
I like Lucy’s character, and the actress does an awesome job. But they could do a better job with her intellectual background. She’s allegedly both a historian and an anthropologist, who was up for tenure (and was in fact denied tenure) just before the Events of timeless began. Both an anthropology and a history PHD program would have taken her, if done together, at least about 10 years. That means she would have needed to complete her PhD by around 30 years old to be up for tenure by her mid thirties, which is the actress’s age. So she would’ve started a PhD program at 20. While that’s a very long shot, I’ll suspend disbelief in this case, but it’s weird that (a), as RG says, she doesn’t seem to specialize in anything in particular (period, region, topic — she’s essentially Dr. Google) and (b) she acts much much younger than a person in her position would. I get the plucky heroine appeal, but her whole narrative — feeling like she’s in her mother, the hotshot senior professor’s shadow, a lack of personal life or family — it seems like they’re telling the story of a woman in her early twenties, not her mid thirties.
Can we petition to have Flynn be in a suit every episode? I mean, yum.
Lol, ah the morally ambiguous villain.
Wouldn’t this storyline be a golden opportunity to actually explore how Rumple found out about Saviors? We know that Emma became the Savior as a result of Rumple including a dash of her parents’ true love with the Dark Curse, but there’s certainly more that could be told. We know how he went about doing it, but we don’t know what led him to that conclusion.That would be an intelligent use of the character, and would allow them to do Rumple flashbacks which is clearly what the writers and RC enjoy more than the Mr. Gold persona.
