Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I’m a pretty big believer in tabula rasa–I don’t agree with the idea that Morfetus is born believing one thing about his father. As a fetus he doesn’t have any sort of reference point for good, evil, right and wrong (he can’t even hold his head up yet, yet along tackle such intricate philosophical preponderances) and will make his own decisions based on his culture, society, lifestyle, and influences from both his parents. This is why so many of us thought that Morfetus believed as he did in the Dream World largely because he was a manifestation of Belle’s anger/hurt toward Rumple. Take that away and I’m not sure how I’m supposed to understand this.
Also, I’m sorta shocked that no one has brought up Neal. By the end, he and his father had made a sort of peace. Neal loved his father in spite of his father’s flaws and even came to understand some of Rumple’s fears and cowardice thanks to their time in Neverland and leaning about Pan. Someone needs to remind Rumple of this, that his other son saw the man behind the beast and moreover saw that his father was still his Papa even when he didn’t always like some of his actions.
But that would mean bringing up Neal which, yknow, we mustn’t do.
[adrotate group="5"]"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Can Emma TLK her mother or father awake? By this point, she must have family-true love with them, sort of like with Henry in S1.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"I will say this didn’t turn out to be quite what I feared. They technically met, but not face to face. Nor was there any amnesia involved. I thought it was done fairly well, though I think I would have preferred them not interacting yet at all. I liked how they avoided them crossing paths for most of the flashback in a creative way, and wanted to see that continue. Either way, it didn’t end up tainting their first full meeting in “Snow Falls”/”Snow Drifts” for me.
I agree with 100% of this. I actually breathed a sigh of relief.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"I am like 99% sure that the creature at the end of the promo is the Dragon’s “real” form. So we’re finally going to get some answers about his identity? About time.
Yay! Answers!
(plz be Mushu, plz be Mushu)
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Actually I think this is one of the better magical plot twists they’ve had recently.
I’m not sure how the mechanics of it work–there was no apple, no spinning wheel, no nothing–but I will admit it was a twist I didn’t see coming.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"GENERAL: This is probably my favorite episode of the season, though not without some glaring faults. I liked a lot of the “true love” themes that were hammered home with Snowing, always the truest couple on this show. It’s been too long since the show focused on how powerful they really are. However, I still feel like this season is aimless; what’s the goal here? Is it just to let Lana act her heart out? Fabulous, but there has to be a point somewhere, right? The Savior storyline is going nowhere and as fun as it is to watch the EQ sass everyone, I don’t get where the show is going with this.
Rating: 8.5/10
LIKED
–“Sleeping Snow is my favorite Snow”
–“Prince Farming”
–Past!Charming without the horrid hairdo
–The water in the bottle is not actually too bad of a MacGuffin; It’s a continuation of last year’s plot! Yes, good!
–The tree is where Mary Margaret found David when he woke up. That’s adorable.
–“It’s good to be on an adventure with you again”
–“They’re gonna find that magical baby tree thing.” Even Hook can’t with this MacGuffin, LOL
–“You can overcome anything. Remember who you are: the product of True Love.” That was actually a nice Emma/Hook moment. He didn’t turn this into all about him; progress.
–“As if we need reminding.” Flashing through Snowing’s love story got me sorta misty eyed and nostalgic.
–The Evil Queen knows her Dylan Thomas.
–I will always be a sucker for the Snowing True Love music.
–Belle’s speech to Rumple in the shop was pretty great. She wasn’t shrewish but she was also honest.
MIXED
–Did we know that Blue Fairy could bigify herself in the EF?
–The second SB’s residents are in danger and not just the CharMillStiltskins, the town actually looks populated and not like a ghost town!
–Belle about Rumple, “He’s not acting like he could be!” No kidding, Belle. Two episodes ago you read him the riot act for acting a certain way.
–The chemistry that might exist between Rumple and Regina is less a byproduct of the story and more because of Bobby and Lana, two actors who would have chemistry with rocks. Their relationship was always mentor/mentee with huge overtones of father/daughter. So many people thought Rumple was Regina’s father for a long time. This “romance”/ powerplay really horrifies me.
–I’m glad that Snowing didn’t meet face to face in this flashback (which would seriously jeopardize “Snow Falls”) but this is a rather cringe-inducing way to have the main couple of the show “meet” before their first real meeting. Like, how did they not recognize each other’s voice or ever discuss it, even if they didn’t realize who was on the other side of the wooden door.
–Wait. Did Past!Snowing cause the Sappling to grow for the first time? So there was no true love EVER before then? Is that what I’m supposed to take away from this?
–“What if I fail?” That was the closet Bobby has played the Present!Rumple I used to know in a long time. Granted it all got overturned seconds later when his eyes went all revenge-y but…I’ll take it.
DISLIKED
–Longbourne is the home of Lizzie Bennett from Pride and Prejudice. Please leave Jane Austen alone, A and E.
–Of course Blue doesn’t have a way to counteract the Water. She’s basically useless.
–A sappling grown from the first spark of true love. That’s…convenient. The sappling that was “lost” was found by Blue’s wand shooting some light into the sky. LOL
–Was Charming just roofied by the Woodcutter?
–Where in the world did this trap door in the forest come from…?
–How did the EQ even put Snow under a sleeping curse when all she did was put Snow’s heart back inside her chest? And how do you manage to split the Curse between two people???
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Uhm but you just did. Or, you tried to use your example of being three, as that being a better argument then my being just one. Its just as thin I would say. But we can only speak for ourselves, that’s what I meant ,when I said I didn’t see it myself. We would need to make an examination of the whole viewer base of Once to really know.
No I didn’t. I said I would not extend three people believing the show is amoral to the 4 million viewers whereas you said you didn’t think people/audience see the show as amoral, at least you didn’t which suggests that you were extending the one (you) to the whole.
However this is likely a case of misreading each other, so let’s just agree that it’s impossible to know what the entire viewership believes/feels
don’t mean that storytellers are exempt from trying to doo better and trying to go in the direction of giving their audients better morals, instead of worse ones. Im simply trying to say, they also have to be carefull not to limit the stories, but that is a balance…
No one is trying to say that they have to limit themselves to not telling stories with amorality. We’re saying that if they are goong to have amorality then it needs to be addressed in a thoughtful and considerate manner with an actual intention besides “moving the plot football”
Some great stories can be riddled with violence and amorality (cf: something like Breaking Bad or GoT) but these actions have consequences and are dealt with by the writers. They are not shoved go background of the story, handwaving them away as if they never happened or don’t matter.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Brrrr, it's chilly out! I think it's #Snowing! Here's another #OnceUponATime #scripttease — hope to see ya tonight! pic.twitter.com/3b8m3G3xhk
— Adam Horowitz (@AdamHorowitzLA) November 6, 2016
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"2) Is this really the message endorsed by the show?
I agree with your take on this point and I’d point out one additional thing: passive endorsement. Do I think Adam and Eddy are sitting in a room coming with lists of questionable morals that they can insert into their show and pass it off as the main thesis of the show? No of course not. But do I think that they write the show in such a way that normalizes themes of misogyny, rape culture, ageism, corruption, sexism, classism, heteronormativity, ect? Yes. Does this stem in large part to them telling stories in the same way that TV has been telling stories for a long time? Yes. Does that make it okay? Nope.
but as I see it, most people will not see these bad moral messages on this show. At least I really don’t see them
This is a bit of thin ice argument. Your sample size of one (yourself) doesn’t ipso facto mean that others don’t see the bad morality in OUAT. The sample size of those who do see OUAT as having some pretty bad themes so far in this conversation is 3. By simple math, we outnumber you lol but I would never say that our 3-person opinion extends to all 4 million people who watch the show.
And again, I cannot say this enough, your morals and attitudes can be affected without you knowing it. You keep suggesting that OUAT isn’t affecting anyone because they won’t straight up see these bad morals but internalizing is done on a subconscious level without your knowledge; it happens when you passively accept depictions of amorality without decrying it.
Again, as I have stated my opinion about,, this is because (Evil deeds)are so much in the background, that they become irrelevant to the story we are seeing, most people are not going to think too deeply about them.
And is this not in and of itself a moral message? That when bad things happen you need not think about them too hard because you can easily push them to the background? The various school shootings, terrorist attacks, sexual assaults, ect that have garnered media attention lately haven’t happened anywhere near me or directly to me but does this mean I shouldn’t think about them, have thoughtful discourse about them, or try to understand how they happen in the first place?
The idea that amorality is irrelevant because at the same time positive messages of togetherness or unity are happening is a rather dangerous idea that seems condone amorality in the first place.
That would have been a wonderful story, but it wouldnt be the one we are seeing. That is why the writers chose to not emphasize the evil deeds or their resolution too much… only so that they could tell the story that they wanted.
And this–what–gives the writers carte blanche to do whatever they want and tell their story without any repercussions simply because “that’s not the story they wanted to tell”?
ETA: From the above linked article from @sciencevsmagic (which was brilliant!)
99 percent of the time, the movie’s “agenda” is nothing more than a lot of creative people passing along their own psychological hang-ups, prejudices, superstitions, ignorance and fetishes, either intentionally or unintentionally. But they are still passed on to you, because that’s what stories are designed to do.
That’s it. That’s it right there. Substitute in TV shows where it says movie and you’ve got the entire sum of our argument.
They shape the lens through which you see the world. The very fact that you don’t think they matter, that even right now you’re still resisting the idea, is what makes all of this so dangerous to you — you watch movies so you can turn off your brain and let your guard down. But while your guard is down, you’re letting them jack directly into that part of your brain that creates your mythology
And *this* is what’s wrong with the whole “it’s just a TV show” argument.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"
