[Slurpeez]

With the exception of Regina and Emma’s budding friendship, yes, most platonic relationships get sidelined in favor of romance. And even that relationship probably is SQ-driven on the part of the writers catering to the SQ fans (who read way more into it than just friendship/co-parents).

I think the writers are all about the ships now, especially CaptainSwan, OutlawQueen, and SQ-baiting—all of which comes at the expense of S1 romances like Snowing and Rumbelle–who get less and less focus with each passing season. If not even Snowing or Rumbelle get that much attention anymore, then familial relationships like Emma’s relationship with her parents or even Henry get majorly sidelined in favor of Emma’s relationship with Hook and Regina.

[Slurpeez]

Tron Legacy predates Once Upon a Time, actually. They did do the animated TV series, Tron Uprising, but that was way back when they were still doing Seasons 1 and 2 of Once Upon a Time. That series didn’t last long, as Disney XD cancelled it in less than a year (May 2012-January 2013).

Ok…but it still doesn’t matter. They’ve tried other (unsuccessful) projects (even though OUAT in WL was actually better than OUAT S3-S5 in my opinion). My point remains. They seem discontent to give their entire focus to making OUAT consistent.

. Well that’s part of the problem isn’t it? And what I was saying above. The writers use rape–or as I more often than not call it, wonk consent–to move plot without every actually thinking through any of those consequences. They have Hook drop a line like getting women drunk and taking them back to the JR for sex, or they have Regina and Graham sleeping together when he’s clearly not “The Huntsman” because he’s cursed but they never give any sort of commentary on it. They just have it happen and move on to the next plot point. This is what leads to massive culture wars between the fandom.

Although the writers offering no commentary on these problematic elements of their writing is part of the bigger problem, I also think it goes back to what I wrote: they withhold their own commentary in order to maintain plausible deniability.

"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy

[Slurpeez]

However, this is also true which means that A and E either 1) don’t really understand their characters 2) don’t really care if there are inconsistencies or 3) don’t see the inconsistencies in writing from week to week.

Yeah. Maybe A&E have blinders on because they’re too close to the product and cannot step back and observe that the show used to be character driven but is now plot driven. Or maybe they’ve ceased caring as much as they used to because they grow bored easily and are trying other projects (e.g. Tron Legacy or their new summer show for ABC Family). Or perhaps they could be very Machiavellian and use the inconsistencies to play both ends against the middle. We won’t know for sure until the end.

"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy

[Slurpeez]

I think the big deal with the Lily Egg is that it crosses some sort of understandable line. You said “good guys make mistakes” and absolutely they do. But where’s the line between understandable mistake and unforgivable error? I just think there’s something wrong when in order to give the villains sympathy you have to tear down the people who are the definitive heroes of the show. But you’re right that it was also just a really horribly plotted storyline that made Snowing look more like villains but also like bumbling fools (putting darkness into a dragon strikes you as a good idea…?)

Right, it was done to tear down the heroes in order to make the villains look better by comparison, but all it did was serve to undermine the show’s originally heroic couple and the message about goodness, hope, and true love.

I think what they wanted to set up for Snowing was an impossible choice: like would you sacrifice someone else’s child if it would give yours a chance? Essentially, something that would pit one’s core principles against one’s deep seated instinct to do everything to protect one’s kid. But it didn’t work — the muddled talk about “potential for darkness,” rather than a more concrete, visceral threat just made Snow and Charming come across as privileged jerks, literally taking advantage of someone they described as ‘not even human’ (or something like that) to slightly bend luck in Emma’s favor. It was just over the top, and made Snow seem like the spoiled brat she used to be.

Snow and Charming have faced some impossible decisions before, but usually it showed them making sacrificial decisions. The pilot showed them putting their newborn daughter into a wardrobe. That may seem like a horrible parenting decision, but they really had no other choice. It may even have been a selfless choice: they did it to give Emma her best chance, as Henry explained, and in order to make sure Emma broke the curse. Emma said that at least they would’ve been together had her parents not put her in the wardrobe, but that view is false. Regina’s guards either would surely have killed baby Emma at worse, and at best, Emma would have been cursed along with her parents. There’s no way Regina would’ve allowed Snow to remember having a child, and Emma’s being cursed would have meant there would have been no savior. So, either she’d have been killed or stuck as a perpetual infant for all eternity. By contrast, the writers choosing to have Snow and Charming exorcise their unborn daughter by putting her potential for darkness into an innocent is incredibly selfish (not to mention incredibly stupid as @RG pointed out). Did they really stop and think that through? How does putting evil into a dangerous creature like a dragon-hybrid make any sense? *head desk*

"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy

[Slurpeez]

Question the first: as the show stands right now, at the end of S5A, are Snow White and Prince Charming superfluous?

Sadly, yes.

"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy

[Slurpeez]

I sorta doubt the show would introduce Persephone (whom most of audience probably haven’t heard of), but most of the audience will have heard of Meg from the Disney cartoon. So, yeah, still going with Meg (but am more than happy to be shown otherwise).

"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy

[Slurpeez]

I guess my question is: if the writers *are* writing these characters to be deliberately polarizing, what is their end game? Do they, in the end, pull up the curtain to reveal a fairly solid message about gender, gender depictions, power dynamics? I don’t think the writers are trying to say something about the culture war–which is such a big part of this shipping wars in this fandom–but are simply part of that war with their own piece of media.

If they are writing these characters to be deliberately polarizing, then they’re not ignorant of controversial character decisions. They’ve shown Rumple mistreating Belle by lying to her about dark magic the way an addict might lie to a spouse about his or her addiction. Just because Rumbelle gets romanticized by the audience, it doesn’t mean the writers are promoting this couple as an ideal romantic couple. If anything, I think he writers are showing what a dysfunctional marriage looks like when one of the partners is an addict the way Rumple is. Belle constantly being duped and lied to isn’t a healthy thing for her, and that is what Belle banishing Rumple in 4×11 was meant to convey (e.g. “All the signs I’d been seeing are correct. You’d never give up power for me, Rumple. You never have. You never will”).

Likewise, I think the writers are potentially aware of why Emma and Hook is polorizing (even though ABC portrays it as an “epic love story”). As @nevermore brought up, I think Emma choosing to don the pink dress in 5×3 showed her reluctantly “softening” herself (i.e. changing herself to get him to like her), but that it’s not a good thing (i.e. what she told Henry how changing to get someone to like you never works out). I also think that the writers are very aware of why Hook is unappealing to some; that is why they have him say hurtful things to Emma as the dark one–things the writers wouldn’t have him say otherwise. That way, the writers can slip in certain true aspects of Hook’s character but then turn around and maintain plausible deniability by claiming “it was a curse!” when certain fans complain. That is why the writers can have Henry say he never liked Hook, but only when Henry was under the effects of the Spell of Shattered Sight.

Regina and Robin also seem to be facing a lot when it comes to Zelena and the rape issue. At least the writers aren’t trying to whitewash that by Regina acknowledging how icky it was. Yet, they’re also not going to have Regina admit she rapped Graham for three decades. That way Again, it’s not that the writers are unaware of the horrid deeds their characters have done. It’s all about plausible deniability.

There seems to be a disconnect between what the writers say versus what they show. And I think that is because the writers are using doublespeak so as not to offend any one class of fans. They just want to keep as many eye-balls each week as possible. The best way to achieve that is to deny wrongdoings, only promote “hopeful” positive spin, and keep their mouths shut. I also think that they’ve decided to let the character decisions, plot and situations speak for themselves. The writers being business people, are interested in generating buzz, which usually follows big controversial twists like Rumple being the dark one again. As long as the writers don’t offer their own commentary or just stick to a party line, people formulate whatever opinions they wish. But, that doesn’t mean the writers don’t have a real private opinion or that they aren’t really aware of problematic elements (e.g. Jane Espenson saying subtly inserting a line about the problematic elements of Stockholm Syndrome). I think we won’t really find out what the writers were trying to do or say with certain characters or relationships until the show is done though.

I tend to agree with the perspective that the writers seem to be drawing things out, which is why these unhealthy cycles continue each season. There can’t be any real resolution to these issues of Rumple duping Belle without totally making Rumple into a hero (like they temporarily did in S5a). Trouble is, the writers want to keep Rumple a villain for now, so they keep having to present him as an addict who keeps making the same mistakes repetitiously. I don’t think Rumple’s unhealthy habit will ever be solved until the bitter end: either through death/atonement or final TLK (but only when he’s actually ready to let go of the darkness).

"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy

[Slurpeez]

My crackpot theory du jour is that this is young Persephone.

Though how this might relate to firebirds, I’ve no idea 🙂

Persephone = Meg from the Disney cartoon Hercules, which, if I understood correctly, used the story of Persephone. It relates, because Hercules rescued Meg from the Underworld (unlike in the real Greek mythology).

"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy

[Slurpeez]

Either she’s an ordinary woman from the Land Without Magic, or she is yet ANOTHER character Emma met who originated from Fairy Tale Land or some other realm. Considering this show’s track record with figures from Emma’s past, I’d go with the latter. August, Merlin, Neal, Lily, and Ingrid. Walsh too, if you include Emma’s time in New York during the missing year. Chances are, she’ll encounter this person again in the Underworld, too.

I agree that in addition to my theory about her being the one to mentor Emma about being a bail bondswoman, the stranger is most likely from the Enchanted Forest or some other magical land.

Does anyone else think the stranger could be Meg? Meg was resurrected by Hercules, so a Meg-centric episode called Firebird would make a lot of sense (especially if the term Firebird is being used interchangeably with phoenix, which dies only to be reborn from the ashes).

"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy

[Slurpeez]

So Emma’s superhero cape came from a stranger we’ve never heard of or has even been alluded to? She’s our new MacGuffin, if the non-magical variety.

Seriously, THIS.

Any guesses as to who the stranger (who is a young woman) is? My own guess is the stranger in the red jacket could be a bounty hunter who taught Emma everything she knows and inspired Emma to also become a bail bondsperson and helped Emma turn her life around after prison. Perhaps the stranger then died in the line of duty, giving her red coat to Emma.

"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy

[Author]

Posts