Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
All I can say is that this heart-splitting scheme had better not work. (even though I’m bracing myself for it). *HEADDESK!*
It’s not going to work.
Even if doesn’t they’l just find another way to save him that, in their opinion, doesn’t offend SQ and SF but gives CS what they want. That’s how A and E roll now a days.
[adrotate group="5"]"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"but if you don’t like reading about Hook and CS being dumped on here, then I encourage and ask that you ignore it.
Oh I had no issues reading about the criticism of Hook. I find it interesting. That’s why I responded to them. I was simply offering another view on it. Not a personal view, like I’m trying to attack you, simply more of a devil’s advocate view if you will.
I am going very very very respectfully ask that you do that in the character threads then. We’ll move on to both Emma and Hook soonish (depends on how long Rumple takes). I just need to look at the whole picture and take everyone’s concerns and issues into account. You are, of course, more than welcome to weigh in on our conversations here. But the devil’s adovcate stuff, let’s do that in non-safe-haven places
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"That’s what I’m hoping for, but knowing the writers, they may not be able to resist doing a “what if they actually met as kids this entire time” twist.
Uhh I really hope not. The only way I’m ok with that is if they were young and they do meet, but they don’t know who they are. Regina just remembers meeting a girl from OZ and vice versa. If I see a memory wipe from Cora, I will not be pleased.
A and E can’t resist the idea that Regina and Zelena met once and had Cora interfere. It’s too juicy for them.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"CRAP!
I had a huge response and it got eaten and I didn’t save it.
Which means re-typing it all. It was really good too.
Fine here goes.
I personally am going to leave the Hook v Rumple question alone for now and focus on the original question I posed.
While I agree with Keb that Rumple has a fear of not being loved, I think there is something still deeper that informed his character. It’s important to note that I consider the show broken into two parts: Original! OUAT (S1-S3A) and OUAT version 2.0 (S3B-present) and that the way the writers have conceived of Rumple is different in each, the motivation behind that being something we might get into later.
For me, Rumple’s fear is often talked about too much. There is something far deeper than informs him and that’s being a son who was abandoned and a father who did the abandoning. His true archetype was never The Coward of the Trickster but the Father searching for the Lost Boy (if you want to get really deep, the search for the Lost Boy is on the surface for Neal but is also about Rumple trying to heal himself from what Malcolm had done to him as a kid). Everything about Rumple stems from his traumatic past of being abandoned. It’s why the writers have never gone back further than Rumple/Malcolm: the moment Malcolm abandons Rumple is the moment Rumple actually becomes Rumple. When children are abandoned they instinctively place the fault not on the people doing the abandoning but on themselves. It’s the “I’m not good enough” syndrome. We’ve seen it with Emma, Henry,and Neal, and as of S3A we saw it with Rumple. Now, it’s almost never the case that they aren’t good enough, there is always something deeper going on (Snow and Charming are facing down a curse; Emma’s in jail; Malcolm is a selfish man).
One of the throughlines of this show has been family and how family can both damage and heal us. @Nevermore put it far more eloquently than I can in another thread: our family–both blood and not–informs who we are as people and our journey in life. That has been one of the biggest threads in OUAT since the beginning. While we often roll our eyes at the “daddy/mommy issue” card being played (and the writers do use it an awful lot) the fact is that it’s not wildly off base. Our families do damage us; and they heal us. And that’s what the show was supposed to be about: this wild, big, extended, and insane family who was damaged through the generations and finally came back together because of the Savior, the Lost Boy, and the Boy who Believed.
With Rumple, it’s less about overcoming his cowardly nature and more about healing the wounds from being that abandoned little boy. This why the S3A finale is so important. Not only was it the end of Pan, but it was a visual representation of this son/father issue. Rumple is able to tell Bae that he’s sorry and that he loves him while simulatenously killing his father BUT while kissing him goodbye in forgiveness. It literally kills his father and metaphorically kills the abandonment and pain he felt when Malcolm left.
What S3B and onward should have been was a continuation of this theme. Either Neal and Rumple, now with Henry, break the cycle of abandonment for good and manage to heal the Stiltskin line OR had the writers still chosen to kill off Neal, made it so that Rumple is retraumatized by being abandoned (this time by his own son’s death) and how he should handle it, not with going super evil but by using Henry to heal. That’s what it should have been to continue on the theme of that family–both blood and not–inform a persons life and journey, something OUAT has always been about.
Instead the show moved away from the family thesis and instead un-nuanced (if I can use such a term) Rumple. Instead of his psyche and archetype being the injured son and father, he became simple: black hat. He was a bad guy who did bad things because he likes power. No complications, no fuss, no muss. Just….evil.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Ten/twelve years of motherhood can age a woman quickly. (Though my mother sometimes looks younger to me now than she did when I was a kid…maybe because her stresses are less?)
There are also a lot of makeup things they can do to help out. Not that Barbara looks old at all, by any standard.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Henry and their love weren’t strong Enough to allow her to open herself up to them.
I don’t know who that is. Who’s Henry?!
Henry Henry Henry. I can’t stand how the show has dismissed him as relevant to Emma’s story. HE broke her walls. HE was the one who really changed her heart. It wasn’t Neal. It wasn’t Hook. To lesser extents, yes, we can talk about MM and the grand town of SB and its inhabitants who adopted the little orphan girl…BUT IT WAS HENRY. HENRY.
Another example of Adam and Eddy trying to make Hook relevant at the expense of other characters are Snowing….the ENTIRE summer, they hyped Snow White and David to be at the frontlines in saving their daughter. “I will not lose my daughter to darkness.”
YES. And Snowing did absolutely nothing.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"This gif made me laugh/cry
That’s it. That’s it right there. That’s OUAT post 3×11
(also cries because Galavant is gonna get cancelled and it’s 1000000000x better than OUAT)
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"The show might have changed in a variety of ways, but Isham’s music always remains good.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Yeah, I’ve got the feeling Regina is going to land in Oz somehow and cross paths with Zelena who accidently magicks a tornado that brings Regina to Oz. And of course Cora has a hand in her daughters not remembering one another.
It will be interesting if we see either Rose or Barbara back on set for this episode. It sounds like you’re on the right track, it’s just a matter of Cora’s role.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"So Emma isn’t lonely because everyone needs a community, it’s because she has Walls™ around her soft and vulnerable ego, which our dashing rogue must break through in order to rescue the damsel from the fortress of her own making,
Yes. And this is what we mean when we talk about how Emma isn’t a strong woman anymore. It’s not saying that having a boyfriend means losing your “strong woman” characteristic. It’s that your entire being and story center around him. That without him you cannot be more than what you already are–and of course, what you are is fragile, lonely, and wounded in some way.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"
