Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I really hope they don’t kill her. I don’t want an easy way out for Regina.
Same. If they kill the EQ, I’m going to be really disappointed.
[adrotate group="5"]"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"And then, almost inevitably, they’ll push the two back together with nary a thought of what came before, pat themselves on the back for a well written relationship and sit back, expecting the accolades from shippers to come in.
And you know what, I will probably enjoy it in the moment as my emotions soar with the scene unfolding in front of me, with the sound-track, with the writing (if it is Jane Espenson
), and/or with the acting (mainly from Bobby Carlyle, but both). But there will probably be a very unpleasant after-taste, as I reflect and think-on, and feel-on, on what we are suppose to swallow, when viewed as a whole.You won’t be the only one. I think most of the shipper fandom will eat it up because when we’re in the moment, logic falls by the wayside. A and E are….smartly manipulative. There’s a whole lot they don’t understand–culturally, socially, interapersonally, and narratively–but they do know how to make audiences sing their praises for brief respites.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"The writers want to have their cake and eat it too.
Yup, that. We can go around in circles of who’s abusive, who’s not, who’s a victim and who’s not. We can even discuss if reality matters in a story like this or whether we should just “enjoy the ride.” The writers don’t care about such things. They want Rumple to be super dark because they find good!Rumple boring. They also want Rumple to be sympathetic because they know he’s a fan favorite and they hired Bobby Carlyle. They want Belle to be both encouraging and to belittle. They want to push the drama until they wring every last little bit of horror from it that they can. And then, almost inevitably, they’ll push the two back together with nary a thought of what came before, pat themselves on the back for a well written relationship and sit back, expecting the accolades from shippers to come in.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"The big villain was defeated
Who…? Rumple? Because we have shots of the EQ showing up at Henry’s knighthood.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"was it something to do with the sword, or the person wielding it (or both
My gut feeling is that it’s because Emma is using it. If it were anyone else, nothing would happen. Emma–the Savior–is the magical (pun not intended) factor)
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"“What are you going to do? Throw a fire ball at yourself?” LOL
Also, what weapon are they going to get?
Emma can hurt the EQ….why?
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"On a different note: @RG, how would you parse stereotype/trope from archetype? I think some of the problems with OUAT I’m trying to zero in on is that characters toggle between archetypes and cliches, but I can’t quite put my finger on what makes an archetype not a cliche.
Honestly, I’m not so sure there is a major difference. The problem is a perception of a cliche is usually negative. We see “cliches” as being bad and a thing to avoid but that’s not wholly true. There’s an idea that only bad writers write in cliches and that in order to be a truly great writer you have to break the mold, step outside the stereotypes and find your voice inside the already formed archetype. I find this to be faulty. There’s a reason why cliches are cliches to begin with and, IMO, it speaks the universality of the cliche, the relatableness of it. Archetypes do the same thing. Why do cultures (pretty much any and every culture) have a Hero? Because we all need someone to look up to, to hold in esteem and attempt to emulate. Is the Heroes Story/Journey cliche in that it’s something that is constantly repeated? Sure, but that’s not a bad thing. It’s relatable and helps us mere mortals examine our own lives (which is largely the point of stories and myth).
The only real difference that I can point to with any confidence is that the archetype is the original. From it, every other iteration f said archetype springs. The bad thing with OUAT, at least in this current conversation, is their use of stereotypes/cliches that are wrong from modern sensibilities because of cultural shifts. Would the sexy librarian have made us all rub our heads in frustrations if this show was written in the late 70s/early 80s? Probably not as much because feminist critique was still getting a foot in the door. Adam and Eddy stick to what they grew up with and ignore cultural shifts that make stereotypes negative, or at least in need of serious critique and conversation. If they wrote Belle as a sexy librarian but actively tried to have a conversation with their audience via their text about the troubling nature of that stereotype, that’s one thing. But they don’t so it’s remains troubling.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Yeah I’m pretty sure the big twist is that it’s Grown Up! Gideon under the hood. For people who don’t watch set photos, it’ll be a surprise. For the rest of us…not so much
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Confirms that the effects of the AU only go until the end of 614, like most of us suspected with the rumor of Sean only getting 5 episodes.
Also, does this confirm that the Robin we see is from page 23? So not an undead!Robin.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Cause I'm extra excited about Sunday's #OnceUponATime #WinterFinale — here's another #scripttease — hope to see ya! pic.twitter.com/vqXRz2wh8A
— Adam Horowitz (@AdamHorowitzLA) December 1, 2016
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"
