Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It is tricky. If the metaphor is addiction, then this becomes an especially polarizing issue. This is where JMo’s commentary is interesting — if that person isn’t simply going to go away, how do you deal with them? Can you help them? Can you live with them AS addicts? What if you cant just sever ties?
Rumple is divisive and there will always be that section of fans that are like “I am so done with Rumple, they just need to kill him already”. But with all my criticisms of the show, I actually don’t think A&E would go there, at least not straightforwardly so. Ultimately even they must realize that the impulse to wave Rumple (or really, what he stands for) away — which is to say, a character who tends to systematically struggle with and yet more often than not lose the battle against his own dark side — is at best naive, and at worst juvenile. Again for all the flaws of the writing, I don’t think turning Rumple into a Hans Gruber-esque villain would be narratively convincing either.
But yeah, I might be giving them too much credit here. If the shiny shiny plot demands it… sigh.
[adrotate group="5"]I love Lana’s commentary on Regina and Rumple. Delightfully thoughtful and articulate. Good for her.
But seriously, I’m all for “seeing something new” with how this story plays out because I think we are all, collectively, utterly and profoundly sick of the Rumple yo-yo effect.
No matter what they do, I’m pretty sure somewhere down the line we’ll be told that “they were planning this all along.”
If you were ok with Neal sitting back in the background like an Archie character or a dwarf then fine. But the main players are all very strong. Neal is a strong person in his own way. But the ability to defend and fight I feel he was lacking. For me, he felt out of place in a land with magic in storybrooke.
I take your point, but I think you and I are talking at cross-purposes. Within the existing storyline and portrayal, you feel that Neal had run his course. And I was saying, there was no inherent reason for why the storyline and portrayal went the way they did. These are all writing choices after all. I suppose I just resist the sense of retroactive determinism. Most of my critiques of OUAT don’t speak to characters “internal” existence within the show, but to representations and writing choices. For example, nothing precluded the writers from exploring Neal’s street smarts, and using that as his main source of strength. Instead, we were told he was street smart, but it wasn’t incorporated into the plot in any significant way. Honestly, I think this has more to do with the fact that the writers weren’t sure what to do with Neal.
What @Keb said. Isn’t the argument that a character no longer does something for the plot and hence must be eliminated a bit spurious? I think it has more to do with worldbuilding and fresh ideas than it does with any given character.
Comparing GOT and OUAT is like comparing Hobbes’ Leviathan with Gummi Bears. GRRM is famous for randomly bringing down the axe of doom on absolutely any character, however central. He’s sort of unique that way. This isn’t because they are no longer necessary to the plot. It’s because in the SOIAF worldbuilding, all the characters are caught in a large-scale brutal geopolitical and historical meat grinder and their death or survival is largely a matter of random circumstances and luck. Also, the more duplicitous, cunning characters tend to have better odds of surviving (a little longer) than the classic “good guys.”
Anyway, in OUAT there is no sense at all that any of the “cosmic events” are bigger or more powerful than the individual motivations and desires of the main characters. Even the worst “evil” of the show (the DO curse) is itself only as big as the people it had infected. There actually isn’t a cosmology to OUAT except for the characters and their various backstories. It’s why we’re getting a glut of irrelevant and boring flashbacks. That’s the only way the writers seem to know how to “add” to the world, which at this point has become utterly laughable because, with the possible exception of Regina, most of the characters are now largely static, so their backstories add zilch.
I do miss him, but he reminds me of Robin Hood now. The man couldn’t fight. He had no magic. The episode where Cora and Regina storm into Gold’s shop in season 2….Neal with the sword was a little laughable. I just don’t think he would survive, and if he did, he would just be a secondary character to serve as Henry’s father and Rumple’s son.
Maybe I’m getting grumpy with age, but I find myself less and less impressed by a portrayal of masculinity where the guy must kick butt, swing a sword, or “cast magic missiles.” Show me a dude who excels at the kind of labor of care that, on a self-proclaimed feminist show, should really have been tackled in a thoughtful, egalitarian, and reflexive way. That could have been an interesting theme to explore in the magic vs no-magic storyline too — what sort of masculinity is “adaptive” in a world without magic. On the other hand, we don’t get interesting development for the male characters anyway, whether Robin or anyone else. The only marginally interesting male character is Rumple, and I think that’s solely due to Robert Carlyle’s portrayal. There are glimpses of interesting storylines — like with Charming and Arthur — but they’re never followed through. Meh.
It’s a tragedy when real people die too soon, but the tragedy for fictional people is when they stick around too long. Neal lost a lot of relevance before he died, but he would have lost a lot more if he’d stayed.
I don’t know. This sounds to me a bit deterministic. But on the other hand, the process you’re describing happened to all the other characters, and not just Neal, as the result of the show becoming increasingly plot driven, rather than character driven.
That being said, I think you can have characters that don’t take center stage in the plot, but contribute to the development of other characters, or serve as the “core” of a particular network. Structurally, I think this is what Neal was — the static core around which the show, and most other characters, orbited. To extend the metaphor, removing Neal changed the gravitational configuration of OUAT. With some stories, this works well — especially in coming of age type stories where the figure of the mentor/parent dies. I don’t think the writers were able to pull it off in this case.
But I see what you mean about the dropped magic/science storyline, and Neal’s relevance to it. That was a real shame. I think it would have made a much better S2 if they had stuck to the original idea, and then done Neverland in a following season.
[quote quote=317495]I think it just means that Neal’s appearance is coming on the heels of Emma trying to save Hook and I’m going to assume that Rumple isn’t exactly thrilled about this. The drama is probably between those two and not Neal and anyone else. I’m wondering if Rumple separates from the group and goes to his shop–where he meets Pan again–in an effort to find some thing that will help everyone save Neal, even though Neal has probably told them not to bother[/quote]
Well, that whole thing should add some much needed oil to the fire of our already dysfunctional fandom. I’m with @Bar Farer on this one though — uncharitably ready to enjoy a bit of schadenfreude at the expense of our CS friends and their hysterical tantrum that’s about to hit with the fury of 10,000 supernovas. I don’t much expect that Emma and Neal will resolve anything, especially in light of JMo’s recent interviews. Neal died with everything 100% resolved? Seriously? I don’t think ‘resolved’ means what she thinks it means, then. But I’m still holding out for them to somehow address Neal’s relationship with Rumple and Henry. #no(t much) hope
Zeus grew sick of this. Because Zeus in Greek mythology is basically a three yr old.
This is by far the best thing I’ve read today.
An added bonus on fox folklore: Huli Jing are magical fox-like creatures in Chinese mythology, where they function as trickster (generally somewhat malicious) spirits, who can shape-shift into humans and act as “vampires” of sorts, stealing humans’ energy. I think they usually take on a female form when they go about as humans.
Not sure if that will be at all relevant, probably not.
This is a fantastic point, I think. It’s harmful to women because a strong woman doesn’t need “arm candy.” She can have meaningful, considerate, passionate, relationships with anyone without one of them needing to be subservient. It’s harmful to men because their stories make them look weak (Charming), foolish (Robin), or evil (Hook)–with Rumple falling somewhere in that vicinity.
So, essentially you’re all saying: instead of subverting existing gender stereotypes, as it promised to do, OUAT inverted them, giving the habitual female stereotype to men, and the habitual male stereotype to women, but doing nothing to challenge the underlying power dynamics. 😉 So as @RG is saying — it’s like the MRA’s pastiche of feminism that claims that feminists just hate men and think women are better (rather than, say, advocate for equal rights and access).
Here’s how A&E seem to react when fans bring up concerns about questionable messages that the show is sending out.
LOL! Can’t someone please tell them that their brainwashing stick isn’t working? At this point, this is embarrassing.
I actually agree with you — Rumple’s search for power has been consistently presented as a symptom of his villainy. I just want to point out that on OUAT characters who consciously seek power (presumably beyond their station) tend to be cast as evil. This isn’t just Rumple — this is also Cora, Zelena, Regina, Isaac, Nimue etc By contrast, characters who accidentally fall into or are born into power (Emma, Snow, Charming, Merlin) are not considered morally suspect. This is a classic fairytale trope, but one that OUAT reproduces non-reflexively. The lack of reflexivity occasionally backfires when OUAT’s medieval universe encounters modern day sensibilities. So the idea that a desire for upward mobility always = overreaching and a sign of evil is kind of problematic
Upward mobility? You are equating Rumpel wanting to become the most evil being of his time to upward mobility? Rumpel murders people so they are scared of him. He murders people because they get in his way. He is willing to harm his son and his wife, seriously harm, to keep his power. He now, in full knowledge of what being the evil dark one does to him, still wants the power. I just don’t agree with what you are saying here. I think equating upward mobility to evil can be a problem, i just don’t think that is what is going on on Ouat.
You are misreading my argument. The part of the statement about upward mobility relates to fairytales more generally. If you look at most European folklore, you get a particular narrative: hapless protagonists, usually poor, goes on some sort of harebrained quest, and by the end of the story “stumbles into” riches, a princess, and some magical helpers. Conversely, the antagonist or foil — usually the hapless hero’s more self-interested, less hapless brother, is usually either lazy or greedy (trying to get said riches, princess etc), but fails at it miserably and gets his comeuppance. That is about the desire for power and “upward mobility” as something that is considered morally reprehensible. See my argument upthread about feudal society and so forth.
More generally, then, I was making the argument that OUAT portrays characters that are from the lower classes (see post above for list) as evil. And yes, part of that portrayal is how they are showing Rumple, including all the evil things he does. My point, then, was that on OUAT if you’re a peasant, and seek to change that somehow, you’re likely going to turn evil (and yes, murder, lie, and do other vile things along the line). So no, I am NOT equating Rumple’s desire for power to upward mobility. I’m saying poor people on OUAT => tend to turn evil.
So the argument is about representations. Similarly, for example, aggressive female sexuality on OUAT is usually portrayed as evil. By pointing this out I am not, suddenly, condoning Regina’s rape of Graham or Zelena’s rape of Robin. Bad actions are bad actions. The argument is about what sort of social person tends to perpetrate those bad actions.
S1 (and 2 to some extent), while not super on male friendships, at least had some stuff going on — for example, there was that random Jefferson/Rumple/Dr Whale episode about Dr. Frankenstein and science vs magic. It wasn’t really a centric on any of those, since its main goal was to set up the Daniel resurrection fiasco and Regina’s back story, but it was something. There were occasional scenes of Rumple/Charming, and there were also just other connections — not necessarily friendships, but something that gave the feeling that the characters were part of a large, complicated, very fraught social network.
For me, things began to lose that sense of “texture” sometimes in S3 with the introduction of Zelena. Honestly, while there were signs of trouble before, I remember thinking that they’d pushed it too far with Zelena. Making her Regina’s sister, with a pretty twisted relationship to Rumple to boot did not help things either. Then making the whole show about Zelena, such that she was involved with almost every single main character, just kinda killed it for me. It took the show’s whole take on fairytales and villains/heroes from cleverly stylized exaggeration to something that you either had to take as campy spoof (think, the PG version of Rocky Horror Picture Show) or as a kind of distastefully grotesque melodrama. (I still feel grumpy about Zelena because for me, she was what “broke the 4th wall,” even before the whole business with Neal). Ok, sorry, I digressed — the point about Zelena is that, for me, she was the character that made the show’s focus on family move from intriguing and engaging to slightly ridiculous.
But then came the Frozen money-grab, a progressive shift towards prioritizing romances, especially those of a “new” variety, which I think is what @Slurpeez was hinting at upthread. (Rumbelle and Snowing get less time because, I presume, they’re married? With the assumption that the audience only wants to watch those romances where it’s uncertain whether the guy gets the girl?)
What blows me away with all of this is that how is it possible that Kistowitz wouldn’t want to write at least one strong male friendship. I mean, Kistowitz. See what I did there? They don’t have to go too far for an example of what is obviously a long-standing friendship and intellectual partnership, which dates back to their college days, so over 20 years.
I think, @RG, you might be onto something. It seems to be so much the elephant in the room that maybe it really is about wanting to steer clear from the fandom’s projections. Though that’s truly sad. If they are indeed so concerned about the “homoerotic” overtones of any portrayals of male intimacy that they are actively refusing to depict examples of male friendship, that’s just one pitiful commentary on the state of things.
