Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The title makes me think of those occasions when, for lack of a more readily available reflective surface, you ask you friend “do I have chocolate on my face?”
My first thought is also Sidney, but if they did go the totally random character route, I would love to see a riff on Till Eulenspiegel. Though that’s probably way obscure, come to think of it.
[adrotate group="5"]Mr. Hyde enlisted the help of Mr. Figaro and Mr. Todd in stealing the source of Mr. Samson Gold’s power.
And Mrs. Lovett bakes it into pies*.
Yes but it does beg the question: why the entire Floof? If one needs just a hair, why take all of the Floofy?
*Mass production!
[quote quote=327121]There better not be two Hooks. I can barely stand their being one.[/quote]
Considering that this show seems primarily interested in exploring the <sarcasm> bottomless depths of Hook’s personality</sarcasm>, I am suddenly put in mind of a fractal multiplication of Hooks into more and more versions, as each new version is given the Jekyll serum in an effort to fix the situation and get to the “real” Hook, and then each of those is split and thus, to infinity. Good lord, can you imagine?
I could believe this as it probably would be used a motivation for Rumple to change so he doesn’t lose his wife to another man. As opposed to, ya know, a child on the way or whatever.
Metaphor for a rescue mission, for all the souls Hades sent to the river?
Ha!
Edit: I actually think they could merge it with Moby Dick, and do a weird mashup of Verne and Melville *twitch*
Here’s a different passage about Dark Waters from MD:
Yet the voice spake true; for scarce had he pushed from the ship, when numbers of sharks, seemingly rising from out the dark waters beneath the hull, maliciously snapped at the blades of the oars, every time they dipped in the water; and in this way accompanied the boat with their bites.
I agree — this is such an interesting analysis, Slurpeez. I’m especially struck by your sense of Emma as an unreliable narrator — and I wonder if that’s the writing, or the acting. It’s going to be really interesting to see if any of this plays out. But I also wonder if the writers are as much of a united front as it might appear. Sometimes it feels to me like there are several factions within the group with different interpretations of the characters, and different stakes in the story. I know A&E have the final word, but I honestly think these two are not exactly the brightest lights in the harbor – so if someone is writing doublespeak, they might not notice. Although maybe I’m massively underestimating them and this is all a long con.
She only stopped seeing or hearing HeadRumple when the lure of darkness was at its strongest (i.e. when she was with Hook in the field full of prink flowers of DOOM).
Oh, that’s an interesting idea! Though I think that’s giving the writers too much credit.
So re: deleted scenes/canon. Does canon means that a scene happened, but we didn’t see it, whereas non canon is it didn’t happen and has essentially the same status as a blooper or alternative ending — is that correct?
If so, then there is an argument to be made that demoting the deleted scenes to non-canon status alters the overall value of the product (DVDs) — after all, a deleted scene that counts as an additional part of the show that you didn’t see would be more valuable than the cinematic equivalent of a doodle. Someone should complain and demand their money back.
Anyway, if ever I suspected that Adam and Eddy might actually have artistic integrity — or a consistent vision for OUAT — I am now relieved to be disabused of this notion.
If there’s NOT a S7, then I think Rumple is far more likely to live, having given up all the darkness once and for all.
Random thought this morning: we’ve often talked about how Rumple in the early seasons was modeled on a trickster figure. By definition, a trickster is a character with a lot of knowledge (or high intellect) who uses it to bend social and cosmic rules. But I don’t think that a trickster has a redemptive arc — that’s just not his/her narrative function. He (or she) sometimes prevails, and sometimes fails, but never stops being a trickster.
Anyway, what happened to Rumple over the seasons is very similar to how Marvel reinterpreted Loki (another trickster), by making him a villainous antagonist to Thor. But redefining the crossing of social boundaries/flaunting of norms as evil (or, worse, Evil) is a really problematic oversimplification, in my opinion. After all, one of the trickster’s roles is to challenge the status quo by exposing its injustices and absurdities. I think it’s especially a pity in OUAT’s narrative because without a trickster to hold up a mirror to them, our heroes have become, for the most part, such loathsome and unsympathetic human beings that one is really tempted to, as the kids say nowadays, send them to check their privilege 😉
Anyway, I suspect that Rumple will end up poorly, however the season renewal gets sliced, because if trickery is irredeemably evil, and a trickster can’t change his stripes, then this is going to be another retribution narrative. *sigh* Either way, I still mourn the loss of a really interesting character.
