Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This show really has become Once Upon a Hook now. It should’ve been EMMA who sacrificed herself and really became the Savior by taking in the dark magic and going to the Underworld. In a narrative sense and in a character-driven sense, her dying would’ve been better to motivate everyone else to go and get her back, because unlike Hook, everyone loves and is pesonally connected to Emma. She is the glue that holds everyone in SB together. It would be 1000x greater if Emma really were the central character and the one who features on the poster for S5b. The first half of S5 was supposed to be about Emma, but instead it became all about Hook. Now it seems as if the second half will be all about him too.
[adrotate group="5"]"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
The point is that you shouldn’t ship Anna and Vronsky, or Healthcliff and Catherine — they’re a terrible idea!
Funny you should mention Tolstoy. I just finished watching an adaptation of War and Peace in which Natasha Rostova nearly runs off with Anatole Kuragin, an unscrupulous cad–much like Count Vronsky. Anatole’s pursuit of Natasha is like that of a wolf stalking a lamb. Natasha, who at first rejects him, nearly succumbs after he makes her believe he’d commit suicide due to her rejection of him. Against all caution and good sense, Natasha thinks that this form of control is somehow what “love” means: obsession and possession. If it weren’t for the intervention of Natasha’s loving friends and family, her good name would’ve been ruined.
Tolstoy had a way of using these cautionary tales to warn against the debased part of human nature that mankind is capable of; yet the writers of OUAT do not. Instead, they seem to be suggesting that men like Anatole or Vronsky are somehow to be commended, admired and desired by women. Instead of intervening to help spare Emma from Hook as do Natasha’s friends and family, Emma’s family go along with and indulge Emma’s adolescent behavior. So why are they going to the Underworld to save a man who just tried to kill them all? I used to maintain that it was just the audience’s perception of CS, but after 5×11, it’s the portrayal of the CS dynamic which is so destructive. It’s this back-and-forth is-Hook-reformed-or-not yo-yoing that has me totally fed up.
So why doesn’t this come across for the CS portion of the fandom? Are they just very young viewers raised on Twilight, but not yet exposed to these more complex moral tales?
As you mentioned, these love triangles are nothing new, but what is new is rooting for the lech to end up with the heroine. Does no one recall 3×17 when Hook was literally dressed in black armor? While I loved the new Star Wars, I was disturbed to discover that certain people somehow ship Rey with Kylo Ren, after he tortured her, tried to kill her, and killed his own father. It’s just unfathomable to me.
"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
Other Side of the Mirror Podcast did a live-reaction watch of 5×11 as well as a re-cap of S5a.
"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
You guys have come up with far more interesting theories than I could have. I still hate the premise. Frankly, I’m tired of getting what “might be fun to see” instead of a well-woven story.
Ditto that!
"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
Chances are such a logical idea won’t come true.
I love that theory so much, but I don’t think it’ll come true. *sigh*
"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
Question: If they are writing in EdR’s pregnancy, are they writing in Ginny’s too?
No, they’re not, according to this interview.
"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
Since TLK didn’t work when either Hook or Emma were cursed, whose curse is TLK supposed to break? They’re no longer dark ones. Rumple is the only one who is presently cursed, and there don’t seem to be any other curses on the horizon (as far as we can tell thus far). While it would seem nigh on impossible for there to be a TLK for Rumbelle now, Rumple seems to be the only candidate to receive it now.
"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
With the fairies because “screw parenthood!” is now the defining message of this show
Family show indeed! Boring old responsible parenthood is so far down on the priority list that it may as well not even exist. Remember when maternal and paternal love used to actually matter on this show? LOL
"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
I shake my head in dismay at this “twist.” Unless the writers plan to make Rumple into the figure whom Emma and Merlin supposed could wield the dark power for good, then re-making Rumple into the dark one is total character assassination. Back in Desperate Souls, it was shown that Rumple, the humble spinner, didn’t want power just for power’s sake; he wanted it to protect Bae. Rumple going all evil and deceiving Belle from S3b – S4b was at least the result of the dark one curse consuming its host due to Rumple’s heart going almost entirely dark. While he did become addicted to power and it did become his first love even over Belle, Rumple was set free from the hold the dark one curse had on him when the darkness was removed from him S4. Now, in S5, we’re retroactively supposed to believe that Rumple has only ever been coward who, despite what was shown in the episode Manhattan, only wounded himself to get out of dying? I don’t buy it. No matter how much the writers try and back-peddle on Rumple’s original motivations before the re-set button was hit in S3b, it was clearly demonstrated that Rumple wounded himself so as not to leave his son an orphan the way Peter Pan left him. Rumple eventually kicked the nasty habit of self-preservation in S3a Going Home by sacrificing himself to save his family. He then had the darkness sucked out of him in S4 finale, making him into the purest hero who ever lived. He then showed he was no longer a coward by defeating the bear and defeating Hook in a sword fight! So this cockamamie plot development that Rumple, as a good man without the taint of the dark curse, still has this nasty habit of self-preservation such that he’ll lie again to the woman he loves, is utter garbage.
"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
From a moral stance, I question the wisdom of anyone risking his or her life by going to hell. Unlike when everyone went to Neverland to save Henry because he was a child whom everyone had an obvious connection to, only Emma is invested in saving Hook. No one besides Belle or Neal felt the need to try and resurrect Rumple after he scarified himself to save the town from Peter Pan. So why does everyone now decide that Hook is somehow more worthy such as to risk leaving their children orphans? They’re going to the realm of the dead and there is a heavy risk they may never return to the land of the living. No matter how forlorn Emma may be, as a mother, her first duty should be to Henry; how she or Regina could let Henry, a minor, go to the Underworld is crazy. No parent has any business going to hell either, since they all have children to think of! It doesn’t matter if Hook tried to right a wrong that he initially caused; how these parents could even think of risking their lives again when they have only have a moral duty to their children first and foremost is disgusting. Being a good parent means putting the needs of one’s children first.
"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
