ONCE - Once Upon a Time podcast

Reviews, theories, and talk about ABC's Once Upon a Time TV show

  • Home
  • Once Upon a Time
  • Wonderland
  • Forums
    • Recent posts
    • Recent posts (with spoilers)
  • Timeline
  • Live
  • Sponsor
    • Privacy Policy

nevermore

  • Profile
  • Topics Started
  • Replies Created
  • Engagements

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 10 posts - 301 through 310 (of 805 total)
← 1 2 3 … 30 31 32 … 79 80 81 →
  • Author
    Posts
  • April 5, 2016 at 12:10 am in reply to: Emma + Baelfire = Swanfire #320947
    nevermore
    Participant

    Oh my god, Lily’s review. So much THIS.

    And on other fronts, have y’all started a cookie jar for a Zades TLK to precede CS? I haven’t read back posts — long few days of conference travel — so apologies if this has already come up.

    [adrotate group="5"]

    April 4, 2016 at 11:59 pm in reply to: FAVORITE AND LEAST FAVORITE MOMENTS from this episode 5 x 16 OUR DECAY #320945
    nevermore
    Participant

    Ok, I’m late to the party, and most of you folks already highlighted most of the ups and downs.

    This wasn’t a terrible episode, and despite the slower pacing, it didn’t drag, but rather gave the characters some space to breathe.

    Liked:

    I was actually really surprised — and kind of impressed, folklore wise — with what they did with Rumple and Belle. Since I’m rarely impressed with the show anymore, this was actually exciting. They seem to be subverting the original BB story through the idea that one can’t expect one’s partner to change on one’s behalf. This is an interesting way to read against the grain of the standard romance trope. Not that I think they’re that versed in folkloric variants of Beauty and the Beast, but there’s a Russian 19th century version that addresses a very similar thing head on: in the story, the beast is totally insecure that the merchant’s daughter actually will like his human side, after falling in love with the beastly aspect.

    Snow and Charming weren’t actually tediously doltish.

    The Emma/Hook storm in a teacup tedium wasn’t front and central. What a delightful change.

    Flashback Zelena was a bit campy, but UW Zelena was, I think for the first time, almost sympathetic.

    Mixed:

    I was, and still am, predisposed to strongly dislike the Hades/Zelena pairing, simply on the principle that oh my god enough with the ships. But it wasn’t terrible — though really, it was mostly the acting. They floated it in a really impressive way, but the writing itself with the utterly bizarre story of the scarecrow’s brain, bicycle ride, and assorted weirdness was over the top silly. Interesting parallel, though, between Zelena and Rumple. “No one can love me.” Well, then. But… Hades: “I was trying to rescue her from those miserable heroes.” LOL. So… Zelena’s the new Persephone?

    Disliked:

    So, it seems to be foreshadowed that Hades is going to try to use Baby Rumbelle to do the time travel thing. This, of course, will fail. There is no way that OUAT will actually use a sacrificial baby. Though 9 months is a long time to wait, so maybe instead he’ll try to snatch baby Neal (who has experience with this sort of thing).

    That is some preservatives-loaded formula they got going there. Seriously. How long has that thing been sitting in Zelena’s coat pocket?

    Hook getting on Henry’s case. Seriously? Though I must say, I wonder how much Henry’s dialogue was “meta” (Oh, everyone’s an author now).

    And that’s all I got.

     

     

    April 3, 2016 at 5:32 pm in reply to: Emma + Baelfire = Swanfire #320746
    nevermore
    Participant

    “I’ve got 99 Problems… and Captain ‘Hook’ Killian Jones is all of them! Why Hook is NOT reformed character. And why CS is toxic – The red flags” Long post — may have language.

    Thought all the links were quite interesting — the psych blog also offers a really clear-headed explanation of rape culture.

    Hook has a sad story but it’s nowhere near as compelling as Rumple or Regina’s. And Colin is a fine actor but he doesn’t elicit the same empathetic reactions that Bobby and Lana do (no discredit to Colin. He does well with what he’s given, but you can tell he relishes playing the sociopath more than the love struck woobie pirate).

    All THIS! I think so a lot of it has to do with actor talent and the fact that both Bobby and Lana are, in my opinion, in literally a different league than most of the other members of the cast. Everyone else does a good job, don’t get me wrong — but those two just have a gravitas and oomph that makes everyone else pale in comparison.

    But I think the other factor in this is audience resistance combined with the writers really digging in their heels and stubbornly cramming CS down everyone’s throat. I mean, die-hard CSers aside, I think most of contemporary TV audiences of a show like OUAT can spot a Marty Stu when they see one.

    April 3, 2016 at 11:00 am in reply to: Emma + Baelfire = Swanfire #320727
    nevermore
    Participant

    I can very well imagine them being told that focus groups and social media and young people LOVE HOOK and them buying into that.

    What a fascinating post and discussion! Thank you! I am curious though about how much of a “long view” such analytics take. So, for example, is there a sense that a character might be popular for a short period, but “fade” fast (for whatever reason) whereas others might have most long-standing appeal? How does one plan for such popularity spikes in relation to how many seasons the show is predicted to survive? Or does it go season by season (without ambitions beyond the currently funded season). It seems to me that the decision to focus on Hook was, among other things, incredibly short-sighted, but of course, hindsight is 20/20. Though the writers should have known this — all his other sordid qualities aside, Hook ALSO isn’t the Dark One’s kid and has only tenuous connections to everyone else.

    March 31, 2016 at 2:07 pm in reply to: Emma + Baelfire = Swanfire #320581
    nevermore
    Participant
    nevermore wrote:

    I don’t know if the writers are really aware of any meta-messages they are sending, and if they are, I don’t think they give flying squirrel dung about it.

    So I rewatched certain scenes from 5×15: How could could the writers not be aware of how problematic Hook and his relationship with Emma is? They had several meta lines from various characters: 1. Hook admitted the depth of his crimes and thought maybe he sould pay for them.

    “I’m the problem. Emma, you were the dark one for six weeks and only gave into the darkness out of love. I plunged in head first, in a second, for revenge. I was weak! You raised the bar really high, Swan, and the fact is, I don’t measure up…I’m not sure I deserve saving. ”

    2. Liam told Emma that what she did to Hook was incredibly seflish. “Killian’s been fighting darkness his entire life, and you pushed him off a cliff…It was a bloody selfish thing to do. He had a chance to die a hero, to move on, and you took it from him. Is [saving] what he really needs, or what you need? … Stop thinking about your own desies, and let him go.” 3. They had Regina tell Emma that she was took good for Hook. “To be honest, you’re too good for Hook.” The writers wouldn’t include those lines if they weren’t at least aware that (a) Hook easily gives into his darker nature (b) Emma acted selfishly by trying to keep him alive (c) she’s actually way too good for the pirate and he isn’t worth saving. However, what they might not be aware of is how problematic it is to just then sweep those concern under the rug in the name of “forgiving one’s self” (as if that makes up for murdering Merlin or trying to send Emma’s son and parents to hell). *sigh*

    Quote

    Yeah. I think we both go back and forth on this. I have a feeling that Regina currently is the closest we get to an authorial voice on this show, so I can actually see how this might be a sign of a certain amount of skepticism about Hook and CS. I think they’ll keep doing it, because either the show runners or the powers that be at ABC seem to think that CS is what brings in the dough, however they personally feel about it. Bread and games, right?

    But now that I read Hook’s bit of dialogue, I’m actually inclined to retract my opinion that we get a glimpse of a repentant, self-aware Hook. That line “You raised the bar really high, Swan and I don’t measure up” — I mean that, right there, isn’t repentance. That’s competitiveness. That’s “You did better at being a Dark One than I did, and made me look bad. Boohoo, I don’t wanna play anymore. *pouts*”

    Not, “I was a total poop-head, sorry about that.” Nope. It’s another variation of “Look at what you made me do.” And this is where I think the writers are either clueless, or really playing with fire — because I think that bit is sincerely meant to signal Hook’s repentance. But you read between the lines for a second, and you see that Hook’s actually the same sociopath he was all along.

     

    March 30, 2016 at 2:34 pm in reply to: Emma + Baelfire = Swanfire #320474
    nevermore
    Participant

    It started out well enough (Liam calling out Emma for being incredibly selfish, Hook acknowledging that what he did was terrible and that maybe he should just move on), but it went down hill, fast. Why did Liam got to go to heaven, despite mass murdering his entire crew? Because he was willing to pay for his crimes and sacrifice himself for his brother? I don’t think that’s a sound reason not to have to pay for one’s crimes. And Hook forgave himself just because his mass-murdering brother died for him? And since when is Hook’s “unfinished business” defeating Hades? I’m just honestly so confused.

    So much THIS!

    I’m also uncomfortable with the Disneyfication of redemption/atonement that seems to be happening here, because I don’t think there’s a single moral or religious tradition where one simply gets to “try again” quite in the same way they’re allowing Hook. You don’t get to cheat death, cheat retribution, and simply waltz back in after you decided to “forgive yourself.” Sure, they are playing with Greek myths, but overlaying it with some Christian themes in a way that’s not just not applicable, but kind of perverse. If Hook’s unfinished business is with Hades — seemingly for no other reason than Hades roughing him up, which in itself seems totally unclear why that even happened — then it’s essentially saying that Hook gets to take revenge on whatever suffering he had rightfully coming as a result of his misdeeds. Like it or not, Hades is sort of at the “cosmic order” level of things in the OUATverse (though of course that’s not what the show is doing with the character). So Hook gets to bend (if not outright break) the cosmic rules. If that’s not entitlement, I don’t know what is.

    Not to mention that Hook is friggin’ old — he’s been around for what, some 100+ years? He’s had ample ample time to reflect on the nature of his actions, he’s had ample time to turn things around. He’s not a young kid who’s made some stupid decisions and therefore should perhaps be given a second chance. Nor did he have any sort of evil spirit riding his back and influencing his decisions for 99% of that time.  But they are treating him as if he deserves a second chance by the mere virtue of being Hook. Even his “repentance” reads to me like more self-absorbed emo hand-wringing.

    For some reason, they’ve bought into the notion that the audience tunes in for Hook (which, if the decline in ratings is any judge, just isn’t true). ABC probably looked at the Twilight phenomenon and thought they could cash in on it.

    I remember there was a discussion upthread about a kind of “event horizon”/Rubicon that a character had to cross to become irredeemable in the audience’s eyes. I wonder if we can say the same thing about the show writing more generally? I think once they started to deal with themes like the afterlife, which they are very clearly utterly unequipped to address in sophisticated, thoughtful ways, we are really moving from just bad writing/ridiculous characterization to a show that seems to have completely lost any semblance of a moral compass. It’d be one thing if it had never laid claim of a moral message — plenty of shows deal with a moral ambiguity, like GOT or House of Cards — but OUAT made claims about Hope™. I suppose getting away with murder and getting the girl is one kind of “hope” *twitch*

    March 30, 2016 at 12:54 pm in reply to: Emma + Baelfire = Swanfire #320468
    nevermore
    Participant

    I could deal with terrible, amoral message that if this were a show for adults, but many children and teenagers watch this show with their families.

    @Slurpeez, I totally hear you. Just to complement the argument in the article you linked, this is a bit dated, but have you folks seen the Peggy Orenstein book on the Princess Industrial Complex (here’s a link to the NPR interview with her some years back)? The article is worth a read, I think, because she asks some really interesting, hard questions about the messages that little girls receive about gender through what is otherwise a giant money-making machine only concerned with its own profit margins, (and of which, lets face it, OUAT is a more or less direct extension).

    I don’t know if the writers are really aware of any meta-messages they are sending, and if they are, I don’t think they give flying squirrel dung about it. I think this last episode was an especially bad one, in terms of the implicit message: ultimately, Hook’s original impulse to repent, and the sense that maybe he should undertake some kind of penance for what he’s done is entirely annulled through Emma’s blind, slavish adoration. By the end of the episode Hook feels entitled to absolution, not just potentially deserving of it. As in, it’s his birthright for being Emma’s love interest. I think if you’re watching it with younger viewers, you can still make this into a point of discussion, but that takes effort and critical thought — which, lets face it, not everyone has time or energy for.

    Anyway, on the other hand, we also know on this show — at least, reading between the lines — that even if you end up with your romantic interest, it doesn’t mean “happily ever after,” or that the relationship is healthy or that it will last. Rumbelle being the prime example.  Or what looks like what is going to happen to OQ at the end of this arc.  What I am pretty livid about, though, is that if the spoilers are correct, and Robin dies and Hook gets to live — that is so utterly unfair. I suspect SQuers might rejoice for a second, but at this point Emma’s character has become so pitiful and unlikeable that, frankly, Regina deserves better 😛

    March 29, 2016 at 12:52 pm in reply to: Emma + Baelfire = Swanfire #320297
    nevermore
    Participant

    But then these are probably the same interns who misspelled Neal’s name on Twitter a few times, who tweet nothing but Hook photos and CS videos.

    lol *imagines coalition of CS-minded interns all conspiring to report that all is sunshine, unicorns, and adoration in the fandom, while A&E sit on velvet cushions and are being fed grapes…Meanwhile, the disgruntled peasants are sharpening their pitchforks outside*

    Ah, Tuesday morning. Back to work.

    March 29, 2016 at 12:29 pm in reply to: Emma + Baelfire = Swanfire #320293
    nevermore
    Participant

    How romantic is that?

    Only if you like your romantic with a side of Hannibal Lecter.

    But more seriously, I just can’t understand how the writers aren’t aware of this. Surely, one is a random occurrence, two is a coincidence, but three and more is a pattern, no? And even if they are that thick, don’t they have a “reception” team of interns that are paid (poorly) to troll tumblr/twitter etc and report on how the audience is reacting? Or something? Surely someone must be pointing out that at least a portion of the audience has noticed this?

    I think I’ve said this before, but it almost looks like what you’d see if a media product were to be created under conditions of political or ideological censure (at least, from what I remember of my Soviet cinema classes back in grad school…with a minor difference that a lot of Soviet cinema was actually good). It’s a pretty common strategy: the text is ideologically correct and towing the party line, but there’s a subtext that runs counter to the official message. Clearly, there is no political censure hanging over OUAT, but this is too egregious to just be sloppy writing.

    March 28, 2016 at 11:00 pm in reply to: Emma + Baelfire = Swanfire #320257
    nevermore
    Participant

    The sudden about-face made NO sense and wasn’t earned at all. But, like my questions, my protests are pointless.

    I still have whiplash from that one. It was like they filmed the episode with an entirely different intent and ending in mind, and then a fanfic enthusiast of the CS persuasion got ahold of the script and rewrote the ending to fit with the CS party line. Either that, or @Slurpeez is right, and this is another example of them showing what a disaster CS is while letting it continue. I’m honestly completely puzzled by this.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 10 posts - 301 through 310 (of 805 total)
← 1 2 3 … 30 31 32 … 79 80 81 →

Design by Daniel J. Lewis | D.Joseph Design • Built on the Genesis Framework