Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I’ve been wondering something since the finale. Okay, so, Rumple’s Dark One’s curse wasn’t removed by true love’s kiss; it was sucked into the hat and then it broke free. Emma is cursed now, but what I’m wondering is: Since there was no true love’s kiss to break Rumple’s curse, does that mean Belle and Rumple are still true love?
Are they still TL? Yes.
So why no kiss? TV narrative. The writers want to save the TLK that breaks the Dark One’s curse for…another time (and another couple if we’re going down that route)**. A TLK that ultimately breaks the darkest darkness there is? That’s a powerful image and storyline and it’s something A and E are going to do for sure, but not with Rumbelle. The impact has to be at the right moment and 422 wasn’t it for them. So even though it doesn’t even make logical sense for Belle to at least not attempt an on screen TLK, it was passed over because the moment is being saved and instead Rumple lives/has his darkness removed by plot device hat suck.
**I’m not going to offer any commentary on feelings for that since this is the Rumbelle thread and isn’t fair to all other shippers. I’d ask that everyone follow suit.
[adrotate group="5"]"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"EXCUSE ME WHILE I POST THIS ENTIRE THING BECAUSE IT’S SUPER IMPORTANT OKAY
People really do seem to have this disconnect when it comes to Neal and Bae. Like they refuse to recognize that they’re the same character.
I have yet to see anyone explain how Neal was a plot device without displaying an enormous misunderstand of what a plot device actually is. A plot device is something that moves the plot forward, and there are different kinds.
A MacGuffin is an object that’s imbued with a certain importance that isn’t explained, where the importance of the object within the story isn’t what the object is or what it can do, but the actions it sets in motion. It doesn’t take any actions to move the plot forward at any point. (For example, the Maltese Falcon)
A Red Herring is a device that diverts audience attention away from the big, main things that’s happening, making them think that something else is happening than what is actually happening. They’re basically clues or pieces of information that leads the audience in the wrong direction. (Think of all the whodunnits and police procedural shows where it looks like someone did it for awhile, and then at the end we find out it’s someone else. The Third Man’s structure relies on a red herring. From the beginning we think Harry is dead and that the movie is about solving his murder, but it turns out it’s about something else entirely).
Chekov’s Gun is an object that is shown or introduced some place before the end of the story, usually early on, which ends up being used later in the story, usually in a very important way. Oftentimes these objects will be introduced innocuously.
A Deus Ex Machina (something that the OUAT writers use to a nauseating degree) is a device used to end a story, which generally comes out of nowhere, that resolves all problems and loose threads. (For example, the out-of-nowhere potion that ended the Lacey arc)
Those are the big ones that refer to specific objects or people. There are of course other ones which apply to specific moments within the plot (like the Plot Twist, Reversal, Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, Framing Device, Cliffhanger, Story Within a Story, and so on), none of which would normally apply to a single character or object.
I fail to see how Neal is any of the things listed above. He’s not a MacGuffin because his importance as a character is made very clear and he takes actual actions that impact the plot. He’s not Red Herring because he’s not being used to throw attention off of the actual purpose of the story. There’s absolutely no way he can be Chekov’s Gun or a Deus Ex Machina.
He’s not a plot device. He’s a character that serves a storytelling purpose as a catalyst for conflict, but he’s not a plot device (or, particularly, a MacGufffin) as he’s a fully developed character with a very clear and well-explained importance and who actually does things himself that moves the plot along beyond just existing. All characters serves some kind of storytelling purpose because they’re not real people, they’re storytelling vessels. If Neal is a plot device, than all of the characters on the show are plot devices.
GOD. THAT. I am so sick of reading that Neal is/was a plot device. People who call him that simply don’t know what a plot device *is*
ETA: Also….THIS from Kiki (bless her)
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"I’ve been thinking about it and… I think Merlin is a child of True Love. How else could he be the most powerful mage in the realms. They’ve established that TL is the most powerful magic there is. I think Merlin, like Emma, wields that magic. He probably isn’t too wholesome though. Do we know who Merlins patents are? (not familiar with this particular stories and such). Maybe they are a TL coupling. I dont see why Snowing would be the only TL in the whole world.
Well first, Snowing aren’t the only TL couple in the whole world. There are others like Ella and her prince, Aurora and Philip. It’s just that Snowing is the center of our story and that they are the truest love of true love.
As for Merlin, I think the legends differ? But if I recall he’s born of a mortal woman and some sort of mythological creature (incubs?)
Maybe Sir Medrut knows.
Do you think it’s possible that they had already cast Merlin before the finale? I ask this because I just noticed William Shatner’s twitter cover photo…
That would be fun but I kind of doubt it
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"I actually really, REALLY like where this seems to be going. A dark Emma? Yes please. 2 questions; who gets to keep the dagger? Will being The Dark One change Emma as drastically as it changed Rumple?
I think Henry should have the dagger, but it will probably be Hook.
As to the second, I feel as though the darkness should balance out her light magic, but I don’t the writers are going to go that route since that makes for a lackluster season arc
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"What I mean is, it’s not going to the page the post is on. The same thing is happening with the anchored links on the corners of each post.
Like I said…that is supposed to happen because of the number of pages we have reached. When you post in SF, it will ALWAYS take you to page 3 until we hit 3,000 pages (most likely) and then it will take you to page 4 after you post.
Surely, the writers must be aware of all these contradictions? I mean, there’s no way they can possibly be this oblivious. Can they?
Yes they can
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"There is a split: Emma thinks Hook has turned his life around is upfront and honest with her. Yet, Hook is all but saying he’s not.
And here’s the thing for me: if the writers were conscious of that, it would make for a meaty story line. Emma, thinking her beau is one thing but turns out that he’s leading a bit of a double life. The internal struggle then for Emma is “is love enough” and she has to weigh her responsibilities as a human, as a mother, as the Savior. It would deep and meaningful to see how both she, Hook, and their surrounding friends and family (what does Regina really think about Hook spending so much time with Henry? Is Charming okay with Emma dating someone so deceptive?) deal with those issues.
The problem is that the writers don’t recognize that their character is causing so much cognitive dissonance as @Nevermore put it. They seem to be completely unaware of how unstable Hook’s character is. In interviews it’s about how Hook is a redeemed hero and how much he cares for Emma and how he knocked down her walls, ect ect ect. But they never address the fact that when he’s not around Emma, he’s not this Woobie Pirate with puppy dogs eyes.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Speaking of that, it could be that breaking the Dark One curse will be a big CS moment but I would not rule out it being a big Saviour Queen (SQ galore Subtext ) moment either. Regina is the reason Emma took action the way she did, when she did, and the writers love to write Regina saving the day. They can always follow it up with a long CS kiss and wedding to soothe the shippers, and then say look, friendship and family saved the day!
A couple of us talked about this elsewhere but there is a huge difference between the show they are telling and what they are showing.
Telling? CS. they keep telling us that Hook and Emma are in love and it’s so great and blah blah blah.
Showing? Swan Queen. It’s absolutely baiting the queers and those who support SQ.
Anyways…happy Saturday
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"I hated 3B more, but good points over all
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"It’s different situation but the emotion behind is the same: if you’re dying or are going to destroy the world, then I’m going with you. With Emma and Hook it’s horrible and cliche and only serves to make Hook look good and Emma look weak. With Xander and Dark!Willow it was one of the most beautiful things I’ve ever seen.
Totally, but that sort of emotion would only work because of the characters’ incredibly rich history together. Without that depth (and I think CS doesn’t have that depth at all), you get something that just comes across as petulant and overblown.
Very true. Though, it doesn’t take much to get me to see CS as cheap and shallow.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"
