Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Colin-as-Hook as brooding, sexy, dangerous, and thus desirable. I’m sure many of us went through a “bad boy” phase where the guy in the leather was the hottest thing in the room (hello, Gerard Way, singer of sad songs that speak to my soul).
Oh absolutely, if anything one wonders why that stereotype has been so incredibly enduring. I mean, why the leather? (Also, considering the changes in fashion, I wonder what women got hung up on in the 18th century. I mean, there’s a different look for you from your classic 18th century bad boy:)
Ok ok, back to serious.
It’s important to remember that while feminism, feminist critique and media critique are nothing *new* the at-your-fingertips-availability of it–especially via social media–is. The CS fans, from what I personally can discern are either too young to have been introduced to these big idea of rape culture, feminism in media, ect OR older to the point that it wasn’t part of curriculum offered at college–women’s studies and media studies being not exactly traditional.
This sounds spot on to me, and I think you’re right, it has a lot to do with generational access to certain ideas. And while I was being a bit facetious with my comments, I think maybe what I was trying to get is that there’s a step, I think, between being a fan and liking certain forms of entertainment, and being a member of a fandom, and one that is very active in particular ways. We all consume all sorts of media, and we all participate, in one way or another, in fandom(s). While I personally find 50SOG risible, this doesn’t mean that I would find the person who gets a kick out of it risible. What one does in the privacy of their imagination is absolutely their business. In fact I think it’s possible — and probably necessary — to enjoy something while not shying away from critiquing it.
I suppose I’m fascinated with this particular aspect of OUAT’s fandom culture because it almost looks like OUAT’s creators produced this Frankenstein’s creature, that, like in the book, they’re now unable to control and are terrified of (and maybe for good reason). And I guess I’m curious about the different social processes that have made this possible. Hearing you folks discuss it, I think a good chunk of the responsibility for this lies on the shoulders of the OUAT crew, and perhaps even ABC, in that it almost looks like they fed it, or at least didn’t set a tone of cordiality and respectfulness, but enabled something really unpleasant to emerge.
[adrotate group="5"]to that time SQ blogs got hacked…
*sigh* If only their energies could be redirected towards something constructive.
there are many that say their are jmo and Colin children.
appears almost 60 years old
Ok, let me get this straight: the fandom’s being largely shaped by a group of what seems to be socially maladjusted middle-schoolers, led to victory by one very active and potentially psychotic sexagenerian troll with a CS fetish.
the fandom is a cesspool of stupid
Boom.
Zumpie? I want to believe that Zumpie is a troll who is getting his jollies by plaguing the fandom but there’s almost something too honest in Zumpie’s vitriol.
Wow. I mean, it’s sort of hilarious. But wow. And also, “Zumpie”? Really?
a fan called Sean and Colin her dads and that they were with ouat ugly monster, ugh, yeah, there are hate to everyone, but the others are still on the show, while , mrj is out and still gets hate.
@rainbow, am I reading you right? This fan called Sean and Colin her/his dads? And referred to MRJ as ouat’s “ugly monster”? I… I have no idea what to say to that. None at all. And you folks know by now that I’ll cough up an analysis of anything faster than you can say “The coffee machine is broken again.”
Have you been introduced to Colifer and long-suffering Helen? Or Remilie? Or….really anything that was tweeted to MRJ during his time on OUAT. (AKA: Zumpie)
Speak English, woman! 😉 (And no, I’ve not had the displeasure, but I’ve a feeling I won’t like it. What in the Blue Fairy is a Zumpie?)
that u need to be rude to fans and disrespect other people to sell your product, this is a thing i only saw in OUAT.
Ah, interesting. Since I don’t follow OUAT et co on Twitter or other social media, other than the occasional interviews, I had no idea. It sounds like a lot of these people were behaving very very unprofessionally, and in a way that’s incredibly short-sighted (OUAT won’t last forever).
Wow, though. There must be something really wrong — like, psychologically wrong — with this fandom. Can people really not differentiate between a fictional character and an actor impersonating them? I mean, that’s a bit… dellusional, right?
*cough* Warlord Bo Peep *cough*
Maybe that was the Tequila? *hopeful look*
Anyway, I’m sure most of you have seen this, but here’s an interview with the Jessica Jones crew, including Jane, who was brought for the “polishing touches.” I actually think some of her commentary is really telling.
Also, with A&E also focus on the new show, there are people and is well known that Jane is their right arm, that she may also some saying on the story.
I see what you’re saying, @Rainbow, but I’m skeptical. I think for the showbiz crew, Twitter is a promotional platform, and I suspect there’s probably a party line that’s coming top-down about how to interact with the fans. I would not take any of this at face value. Much of it is public presentation of the participants (say, Jane, or the crew) not as Jane or Josh or Lana or whoever, but as representatives of a product (OUAT).
Someone like Jane has to balance her own self-promotion of the product Jane Espenson ™, with the interests of the other product she’s currently associated with: OUAT. She, like most of the other folks on the project, will go on to other things. So now, it’s all about balancing their respective brands – their personal brand, their current project’s brand, their side projects’ brands and so on, without alienating anyone too much. Anyway, I’d not take any social media commentary as a representation of anyone’s true feelings — this isn’t entertainment for them, it’s their jobs, and like the rest of us, they probably have to show loyalty to the organization that employs them.
About Jane and Jessica Jones:
She was doing editing work, not copyediting or typesetting. These are very different things. Here’s an interview which many of you have probably seen, but it gives you a sense of how, exactly, she was involved in the project. She didn’t pen the original text, but as she says was brought it on write scenes and “massage” the existing writing. As she says here, she’s good at and enjoys writing dialogue, not the overarching story.
^^
@Bar, we’re horsing around 😉 This isn’t meant to be taken seriously. But I take your point.
I’m picking on Jane because I am endlessly surprised and disappointed that a writer of her experience, who’s done really interesting and nuanced representations of relationships, whether on Buffy, on Battlestar G, or with Skin Deep, who has worked with George Lakoff (if you’re in a field that has anything remotely to do with linguistics, I cannot stress enough how huge this is), hasn’t taken the lot of them by the scruff of the neck and set them straight about how CS is coming off. I mean, this is a talented writer who also has a background in cognitive linguistics, and whose undergraduate mentor’s work on the relationship between language, conceptual systems, and perception is incredibly influential.
The only way to explain it is that she’s been steamrolled into getting on the CS bandwagon, and, for lack of being able to radically improve it, is now trying to sink it from the inside.
So do I. But I’ve been of the opinion that the writers don’t read/watch other writers work for awhile now. Hence why the show feels so bipolar on every character.
I have this fantasy about CS that what’s happening is that the writers, when they get stuck, go to Jane Espensen, and here’s what happens:
Person writing CS at a given moment: Jane! I’m stuck with writing my CS scene. Adam and Eddy told me to make it romantic. What should I do? Give me an idea!
Jane *smiles*: How about something… hmm, manly? Like, have Hook threaten to commit suicide if Emma doesn’t come to see him? Or, I know, have him give her some gruesome trophy that will signal his undying love.
Writer: *skeptically* I don’t know, Jane. Doesn’t that sound a bit… messed up?
Jane: *barely containing a snigger* Not at all! It’s perfect! They audience will love it!
Writer: Oh, ok. *walks off*
Jane: *takes a swig of Tequila* I will destroy you all yet… *nuykh nuykh nuykh*
I want the show to end with Emma waking up in NYC with Henry and Neal, S3B-present being a bad dream.
I endorse this 100%
But hey, at least she gets to wear a momento from a serial killer. Isn’t that romantic?
lol You know, if you look at all the signs, I can totally see what you’re saying about the deliberate writing. I’ve personally been going back and forth on this for what feels like ages, and can’t settle onto a single interpretation. I think it’s also possible that different writers feel differently about CS, and there’s occasional dissent in the ranks, where those not so fully sold on CS actually sneak in some kind of double-speak.
For Rumple, by contrast, it’s that he is simply an addict or a coward. The responsibility is on him and him alone because he should have willpower or remember his past mistakes or what his fear/addiction have cost him before.
THIS.
In fact, I’m sorry I always come back to this, but I think a show like OUAT — family show on ABC with a potentially very wide and diverse audience — should have some responsibility in terms of its representational politics. Such as:
– don’t kill or send to their mamas all the POC characters
– don’t represent all your mentally ill characters as raving and murderous psychopaths
– don’t represent female sexuality as a source of mortal danger
– don’t make all the poor people into natural villains
– don’t make anyone who isn’t hot, young, and white either die or turn evil
Did I miss some?
Along with Regina, Rumple is probably one of their most non-normative characters (at least from the regulars). I remember that in S1 many fans interpreted him as gender queer (in a broad sense of the term), as mentally ill — and he’s also played by an actor who is older than the rest of the cast. So with this in mind, I really think OUAT dropped the ball.
I agree with @MatthewPaul — I don’t think the writers know what to do with Rumple, but I also think that they didn’t have to either turn him into a hero or a villain. In fact, keeping him at Chaotic Neutral would have worked just fine. The Trickster archetype would have given the writers the opportunity to reflect on and maybe begin to subvert the whole “heroes/villains” dichotomy, which is, frankly, simplistic — if not outright puerile.
