Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This is exactly it. They love Rumple when he is power hungry and with magic. They like him as a villain, mainly because Robert Carlyle plays it so well. But they also want to maintain the Beauty and the Beast relationship with Belle. The end result, a complicated, back and forth, contradicting mess with poor old Belle. Unfortunately her character suffers because of what the writers want Rumple to do.
I think that’s exactly right. If this is how Belle were in fact written — and if she had enough screen time to explore these issues — it’d be a genuinely interesting character and love story. But it isn’t — she doesn’t get enough screen time OR attention for all those nuances to come out. Instead, we get an inconsistent mess, made marginally compelling by the fact that RC and EdR have good screen chemistry and are talented actors.
The other issue with the writing is that A&E appear to have a kind of centralized redistributive economy going on with their character arcs. So by wanting Rumple to be villainous again, they also appear to be giving away/reattributing Rumple’s qualities and character “milestones” to other characters (namely Hook). And if the Rumbelle baby is a thing, then I wouldn’t be surprised if the emotional ickiness of the Zelena baby mess gets sort of “transferred” onto Rumbelle, so that Zelena can come out white and fluffy in comparison.
But more broadly, I think the Rumbelle thing is a barometer of the fact that A&E don’t always know where to draw the line. Like they didn’t with Regina and Graham, or with the Zelena/Robin/Regina thing. And like they don’t seem to with CS in this last season. I anticipate they are going to make another morally icky mess of Rumbelle, even more than they have now, because they still think it’s just “good drama.”
But major kudos to EdR for thinking about and trying to make sense of her character, and doing it in a way that’s actually quite interesting. Someone’s gotta do it, and it’s not going to be these writers.
[adrotate group="5"]“Ships”, though, are like “morals”. If a person likes one, then it’s right and good and unquestionably the way things ought to be, as far as the believer is concerned.
Yes, I agree. Also, based on the interview, I think Adam and Eddy are being a bit coy — if not straight up disingenuous. They are essentially saying “Oh! Look! The fandom, such a weird beast it is! We’re so flabbergasted by this whole “shipping” thing! We just wanna tell stories, and the rest is fans projecting! Ah ha ha, fans, they are so silly.”
This isn’t their first rodeo, they’ve had a huge and active fandom with Lost, and while I don’t know whether the same “shipping wars” were happening then, I doubt this is a new and unexpected phenomenon for those two.
I think what they’re doing — and who they’re really talking to with this interview — are their peers and professional critics, not the fans. Essentially, they are trying to argue that they are writing a show like Game of Thrones, and not Outlander. Which is to say, a show about events and relationships more broadly, where romantic entanglements are only one element of the complex narrative tapestry. Rather than the picturesque backdrop for the central romance that’s, in fact, the main point.
But based on 5A, they are writing Outlander. Except, badly.
But again, if MRJ is back, and not for just one scene in the beginning warning everyone, this could work. Especially if they planned this and killed Neal off knowing they would eventually be going to the underworld and could eventually save him, or at least have the opportunity to be saved.
Well, that would be a heck of a long con, and an impressive one at that. And you know what, if OUAT were a book series, I would totally get excited about this theory. But I don’t think that’s very realistic. These, after all, are not just stories, but also jobs — it’s not like with a novel, where the author could kill off a central character, and then bring them back at a later point. There’s gotta be some reasonable ethics (and planning) involved in hiring/firing actors, and I’m sure legal contracts are drawn up, agents negotiate renewals and timeframes and so forth. I agree that, in the right hands, it could make for an amazing story, but if, in the very unlikely scenario, they went that route, it would have to be a “huzzah! lets do this crazy thing and see what happens, can we get the actor back?” sort of thing. But I doubt they’d go that way, and I also doubt that they’d get MRJ back.
My point earlier, to which I think @The Watcher was partially responding, wasn’t that I wouldn’t love to see Neal, but that this ship has not just left the harbor, but arguably sailed off the edge of the map where it says “here be dragons.” Meaning, the show is so far gone from its original premises (to which Neal was integral) that a) re-integrating him into the present story would involve some serious hooplas, and b) the relationships and characters to whom Neal was structurally integral have been completely rewritten to erase those points of connection that made Neal essential. As I said, this is the case with Rumple and Emma the most (Henry just doesn’t get enough screen time anymore to really “change” his character). And arguably, those two characters are the most frustrating from the point of view of the writing — inconsistent back and forth and total lack of overall character development. Again(!) with Emma and her walls. Again(!) with Rumple’s power hungry but cowardly blah blah blah. Since S3 it’s been a constant “do not pass go, do not collect $200” for those two, to the point where the characters are no longer particularly likable, compelling, or realistic (arguably, with Regina, they were the best characters of the show). I think this sense of stagnation, forced retconning, and generally illogical character building comes from the writers’ attempt to minimize Neal’s role in Rumple and Emma’s arcs, while being unable to write them post/sans Neal.
And bringing Neal back now, whether as a cameo or on a permanent basis, no matter how cleverly it’s done, isn’t going to fix the show, because it’s not going to undo 3 years of, excuse my French, staggeringly s*** writing. And I think Kistowitz know this, and wouldn’t want to open that can of worms anyway, and rock the fandom’s rather toxic applecart. So I think the most logical explanation for the Neal’s warning bit is that it’s just the composer recycling a score, and being sloppy about his Istagram account.
But here, I’ll throw a monkey wrench into the discussion. 😉 What if they did decide to bring Neal back, but couldn’t get MRJ and recast an adult Neal ? How would folks feel about this?
While there’s a lot of unhappiness out there about unresolved (and poorly resolved) Neal storylines, do Neal fans really think that there’s any way to get satisfaction in that regard now?
<p style=”text-align: left;”></p>
<p style=”text-align: left;”> I think there are two different issues here: fans of MRJ and Neal’s character, and fans of that “old” story into which Neal was so thoughtfully integrated. I was a fan of MLois portrayal of Neal, but more importantly I was a fan of those storylines. At this point most of the main characters for whom Neal was central (Emma, Rumple and Henry) have moved on to the point of being barely recognizable. I don’t think there is a place for Neal on the show as it stands.</p>Interesting info, @Rainbow!
I suspect that the alleged “leak” is nothing more than a promotional stunt, released in anticipation of MRJ’s other promotional work for GoS etc. Whether on purpose or coincidental, as MRJ’s projects circulate on social media, a leak like this will produce some hashtags that connect MRJ and OUAT and that parasitically ride on the coat-tails of him promoting his other projects. Is it false advertisement and probably just vacuous click-bait? You bet. But this wouldn’t be the first time this happens with OUAT.
I think we can all agree that ABC only cares about eyeballs and money, and Kistowitz, for all their talk of how they’re pouring their heart and soul into this show, seem to only care about getting praise from the critics and giggly squeals from the fandom. In light of this, while @RG, your post is absolutely right on, the sorts of questions about the integrity of the narrative or the organic development of the characters is just not something that they seem to give a hoot about. But honestly, I almost feel sorry for them. At this stage, it’s unlikely that OUAT can ever get back Season 1 quality — or even S2 or S3A, no matter how much A&E like to promise a “return to Season 1 feel”. They’ve screwed up OUAT too much for it to be recuperable.
And while we’re are at it, let’s cut out the middle man and have a fan competition for the show’s writing. At this point OUAT’S plot has more holes than a Stuart Little crack fic, so why not just turn the whole thing over to the fans?At worst, we simply won’t notice the difference. And it could actually be an improvement.
ABC could be raking in mad money for exploiting the fandom’s unpaid labor, fans CAN HAS ALL TEH SIHPS, and Kistowitz can actually start putting together a professionally written and well-thought out S6.
Wins all around.
So, about that poster… Am I the only one who found it riotously funny? I mean, that right there completes Hook’s saccharine Fabio-ization.
In light of this, I petition that we start calling him Hookio.
If the creative team insisted on having a piece of fruit then they really missed a great opportunity here because there is one piece of fruit *heavily* associated with the Underworld and Hades in particular: the pomegranate.
RG, I’m sorry to say, but I don’t think these folks think that far anymore. Pomegranate seeds? Nah. Too complex. Too referential to nuanced things, like actual Greek myths. At this point, I suspect they’re thinking about things like “brand recognition” and how many DVDs will a close-up of Colin’s face sell. As to apples — hey, it worked for Twilight, right? Why mess with a good thing… [/sarcasm]
