myril

I am tempted to compare the relation of Regina and Emma with the two daughters in Mother Hulda, a biological daughter and a stepdaughter, the latter ending up covered with cold and the other covered with pitch. Depending on who you ask you might hear a quite different story for each, where either the gold one deserved what she got and earned it through work, or one where she was favored without good reason and got it easy while the other was confronted with exorbitant tasks and punished with bad luck. Well, the Grimm Brothers told one version, where the stepdaughter got the better end, because she is described as helpful and kind and thus earning the gold, while the other one is greedy but spoiled, lazy and whiny, and so not earning anything better than pitch. But who can tell if the Grimm Brothers' story is the "true" story? The show takes it in a way a step further, making Emma (and Snow) of noble birth and Regina of not so noble birth. At least Cora was a poor peasant before she married Henry sr, or a Miller's daughter, although millers had a better social status than peasants and were not poor because they usually had quite a monopoly in their village/region back in the days, but anyway. And Emma's is not born noble, her father was a sheppard, and is a bit of a fraud. And still there is a sens of unfair starting point and issues of social class even. Emma had all chances at birth (in theory) and would have become effortlessly queen, while Regina had to fight to even have a chance, so she is the underdog.. That is the feeling some have, isn't it. I get why some might see a Mary Sue in Emma on paper, and particular agree the innate magic is a story telling problem (and a huge one). But if we call Emma a Mary Sue than we should call Regina as rightfully a sympathetic jerk Sue. The problem with the characters is pretty much the same, they have huge story telling potential, and keep even having that, but what we get to see on screen are at best teases and not a well developed story and character exploration, it's of the forgettable kind of fan fiction. But we life in the decade of bad fan fiction making millions (getting the feeling most of the summer movies were just that, bad fan fiction, not to mention one upcoming movie for which the trailer just got out), so Once is more the normal and not an exception with that. Love can make blind, is a saying. So if Regina is the character the showrunners love most, it might explain, why they do her character some of the worst disservice, why some of the worst writing is coming with this character. Lack of distance. Just look at this nonsense of a romance between Regina and Robin, now peppered with love triangle obstacles. If they would question what the pixie dust foretold it could be an interesting story: Regina fooling herself with true love while Robin was a bit of rogue before meeting Marian (and it turns out the brain and person behind the whole Robin Hood myth was Marian) who just has a thing for smart, courageous women (not saying, Regina is that, but Robin thinks so). (And I so can't help it to see some of the character Maguire played in Scott&Bailey, a good guy but a simpleton, who so was no match to the lead character Bailey; and she cheated on him and ditched him, not his fault, but characterwise it was foreseeable). As much as I miss a better exploration of the mother-daughter relationship of Snow and Emma, and think they should show a bit more of Emma's story for better understanding, at least they treat Emma better with a more decent development of the relationship with Hook. The Neal story though was a big mess.

I disliked the Pan = Pied Piper angle in Nasty Habits at first absolutely, but mostly because I think they didn't get much of the saga. I missed the part of the selfish town leaders betraying the Pied Piper, although I know there are (wild) speculations that the saga might depict an event of some religious sect disappearing with children, young people of the town. And while on the show the townspeople were speaking of "children" hearing the pipe and disappearing, Pan then told Rumple it were just boys feeling lost and alone able to, and they showed only boys following the pipe. Get why they did it, suspense! Didn't want to give away 10 minutes too early, who the Piper could be, but not the best dialogue writing (aside the extras were acting terrible, or the director had no idea how to make them look better). One of the problems this show has: they love their alleged surprising twists too much. Shiny toy to play with, but that is it often. On the other hand, growing up with Pied Piper is probably one of the reasons why I always found Peter Pan a bit creepy, both luring kids away from home (Pan the Darlings, the Lost Boys were said to haven been orphans, still found it creepy why he wanted to help them to avoid growing up, but I was a kid thinking that being a kid is not per se the best time of life). Still I found their take on the saga rather mediocre, though a telling moment for Rumple and Bae/Neal and their relationship, showing thankfully that their was a lot more wrong in it than just Rumple not following Bae through the bean portal. Interesting that Pan and Rumple both had a thing with taking children away from parents. Medusa is though an even worse example for the shiny toy syndrome of Once. And this time an awful disservice not just to the mythology but to one of the characters. It made no sense to me at all that Snow would go and cut off the head of a creature to use it to stop Regina. Unless of course you think that Snow is either a practical person (then she should have not stopped Regina's execution maybe) or as bit of a bad streak herself. They really want to force that down our throats. do they, Snow as someone doing bad and even evil things as well, Regina is not alone. And what they both share as well: they're more worried about their own happiness and their loved ones than about others. The only problem I have with that is, that though Snow was a bit vain already in season 1, and thankfully not a flawless person, this leveling down of the good characters is not well done. I don't mind grey and even dark, but the show is more a cheesy mishmash of nonsense. I just don't see the development coming from inside the characters, it's something more befalling them like a virus.

But weren't and aren't those shows mostly procedurals? Guest star a week, different story each week, with the main cast and a bit of their story keeping it together, in a western the setting of a town, valley, farm, in other shows it's mostly job related. It's the concept that many crime shows have and works as well quite nicely for medic shows. The case of the week concept. For Once that would be something like a fairy tale a week. But we have a set of new characters added for a story arc going over a number of episodes, a half season plus eventually guest characters for an episode. And have seen rants concerning procedurals not giving enough story to the main characters and their development, while others ranted the moment an episode was dedicated to one of the main characters, because they were in it for the cases. It depends a lot on what people watch a show for - and Once is a show that least by now many, the most vocal fans for sure, watch for specific characters and their story - and not the fairy tale of the week. I often call it Once Upon a Soap Opera (Tale) because the show has more the narrative structure of soap opera (particular with their endless pool of new family members). The reactions in the fandom to these casting news (every week a new one?) show to me people are nervous about how important their beloved characters still are for the show, how much story they still will get. Is that reasonable? Probably not. On the other hand people have already the feeling, that their faves are getting the short end, which i though would blame less the guest stars and half-season-arc characters for but that Regina has become so shiny (not saying she actually get more and more quality screen time, but the point is it seems like she does), that it is hard to see the other main characters and their developments. So far people can't connect besides Rumple the other main characters of the show with Frozen. And the other much talked about story for the upcoming season is about Regina and her lover Robin. So there are worries, that others will get even less attention in the upcoming season. Listing how many guest characters/actors were on the show in the past seasons, as Adam did on Twitter, doesn't dispel these doubts. It's not about numbers, it's about reception and impressions, the non-statistical part of psychology.

Yiiks, Do all fantasy shows have to be turned into family soap operas now, is that what people wish to see? Nothing against parents, siblings, kids, they are important in people's lifes, but so are work relations and friends. Sometimes I am glad, that even though I might think these are not the best writers in the universe, they are still the ones writing the show, and not some fans.

Soulmate pretty much comes from the Greek mythology, that humans once where beings with two heads, four arms and legs, but the gods split them up. The two halves though suffered and died a painful death, something the gods didn't wanted either, they fancied the tributes humans paid them. So they made the split bodies so that they could survive on their own, but they always longed for the other half. When these soulmates find each other, there is a deep and unspoken understanding between them, they will feel unified again and enjoy that as well physically with each other. Our modern idea of (one) true love, probably influenced by rediscovering the heroic world of medieval sagas and Minnelied by romanticism, is a mix of that idea and another Greek idea, the idea of a love transcending our physical existence (divine eros, which though never leads to marriage, it's closer to what is known as Platonic love nowadays). Could say: soulmates are kinda meant to marry, while true love is something not necessarily limited to romantic relationships. The funny thing is, that somehow the terms commonly are used the other way around, soulmate for even non-romantic relationship while true love has become a quality or high form of romance. I highly doubt that the show works with the concept of ONE true love, although they stay ambiguous about it, it's never quite clear. But sure parts of the audience, maybe the bigger part, understand true love as something one can only experience once in a lifetime. I never understood that thought though, because would find that life is a rather sad and loveless place if we can have only one true love in our lives, and even more so if that is even considered something people have a hard time finding. Well, we're spread on the planet, some coincidence if my true love lives in the neighborhood or crosses my way in some other place at the right time. Any mathematician around to calculate the chance? Think it was E. Kitsis who was once quoted in an interview with calling Rumple and Cora soulmates, which though wasn't taken well by people, and A. Horowitz later paddled back. I wouldn't bet on them making a difference between soulmate and true love, but of course using different terms always keeps the door open to insist on a difference if need be. My more sarcastic take if looking at what so far has been shown on the show: Soulmate is the special bonding fate puts you in, if you earned it or not. True love is the special feeling you have because you bonded strongly and work on keeping that connection, you have to earn it.

Lucy Lawless will come to Agents of Shield Season 2. No details known yet. http://www.tvguide.com/News/Agents-SHIELD-Lucy-Lawless-Season2-1084667.aspx

Didn't they mention on some panel, in an interview, that at an early stage they'd planned to kill Charming though in the first episode? But agree, there might be a correlation between different perception in the audience and what the writers find exiting and want to write about. Regina was always on my list of main characters though, a protagonists does better with a good antagonist, I saw her and Emma as the lead in the pilot. The pilot introduced us to the Enchanted Forest and Storybrooke through Emma and Henry (and his Storybook). The second episode gave background for Regina (Title: The Thing You Love Most - sic!), the third was about Snow and Charming falling in love (Snow Falls), the fourth gave some insights to Rumple (The Price of Gold), as did the following about how Archie became Jiminy. That the second episode was about Regina says a lot (but I only now noticed the possible other meaning of the episode title) I think some people at least saw something of what A&E intended or to some degree. I did, though disliked Rumple as part of it. Still I felt betrayed during season 2 when I realized that nevertheless I saw a different show at the beginning than A&E ever might have intended, because Regina and Rumple were taking more attention, and even more in my view the lack of attention to women friendships (mentioned that already before, so just in short), and diverging more and more from confronting fairy tale characters with our bleak world with little magic. Remember people had a lot of fun at the beginning about speculating, which fairy tale character a new actor might be, how other fairy tales could come into play, about hints for the story. Now the speculation is about, who will be whose romance or related in what way, lost brother, sister, aunt, mother, granddad, whatever. Not that this can't be a bit of fun too eventually, but with all the fairy tales and tales, the richness of mythology of Greek, Norse, Arthurian and other sagas, more tales to discover even from other cultures, the fun of (re-) discovering folktales as much as pop culture history there was something to work with and let imagination run wild. I don't get that feeling that much anymore in the fandom nor from the show. Mixing in Peter Pan and now Oz might have been not that much of a good idea even, although I get the thrill of doing it. It could be okay to go more into the fantasy worlds, if they would finally do some proper world building, but it's still mostly haphazardly. The rules of magic can be way too easily changed and seems to be no big deal to break them, regardless that the characters say otherwise (rule of storytelling: show if you can, not just tell). The Dark Curse is something that in a generation probably a 4th grader can cast, which though is kinda how technology and knowledge works, next generation finds it easier to handle it, knowledge becomes more common (though I guess I still could beat some Millenials in computer knowledge), the more its done, the more practice, the more one can work out kinks and make it easier to do. Nevertheless, there never has been much world building, and that is the tricky part of any fantasy, but the way to keep characters relatable and grounded. The other way is to make Storybrooke that anchor for the character development, but exploring boring real world problems seems not to be any strength of these writers. Being flashy is fine for a fantasy (animated) characters, good and even more so the evil ones, but this is real action show not animated series, and doubt they want to go campy and be still taken somewhat serious, but I struggle to take any characters besides Emma serious. Mixing drama and comedy is high art, and no, this show is not that. Maybe they should study some Shakespeare again (remember Whedon liked to do that with his cast in leisure time).

Ginnifer and, being a modern couple, Josh will likely cut a bit back on filming for the rest of this year for family time. So guess we won't get flashbacks with them, to have enough time for Storybrooke. I wouldn't mind to see no flashbacks with Regina either, wouldn't mind to see her even less in Storybrooke though, but doubt that that will happen. Flashbacks for Emma or Henry are an exception anyway. If we're right that there is a connection between Elsa and Rumple then we will see him in flashbacks of course, and they might even manage to tie in Belle into that in some weird, contrived way. Hook, no idea, he was in Neverland until shortly before the curse was cast, right? Although could as well have been back for a while as well, couple of months, and might be tied in somehow into the flashback. Highly doubt though that Frozen would go back as far as to Hook's official naval officer time. Mitchell's character has connections with the Frozen World (being the sisters' mother or the original Snow Queen), that much they said, so there might be no need to have flashback just about her. And though they said, that Frozen is a half season thing, I am not so sure if that includes Mitchell's character. She could be very well the Snow Queen and the Black Fairy and around for the second half as well. As a bit of stand alone episodes can imagine to have a flashback for Belle to the Missing Year (it would do good to see her work with the others without Rumple) and maybe one Robin episode (they really need to flesh this guy out for me to start to care about him the least bit, I care a lot more about Roland than him at the moment) It was said Georgina Haig was booked for 9 episodes, while the two for Anna and Kristoff where for 5 or 6 episodes. Somehow doubt, that Anna and Kristoff are just characters in the past, otherwise we could already say there would be 5- 6 episodes with flashbacks to Frozen story arc. We will have 2 episodes left without much of Elsa involvement, and my cards are on one Robin, maybe with Regina episode including flashbacks, and one probably Rumbelle or Belle flashback. It was not mentioned for what amount of episodes Mitchell is booked. Just wondering: Was there an episode without flashback so far?

My somewhat overheated brain (love summer heat while thinking about something frozen) made of "White Out" "Wipe Out". No idea if that might be intentional. Isn't white-out a correction fluid brand, that stuff you use to correct mistakes in old fashioned analogue writing on paper? Just brainstorming a bit here. Besides that it means in meteorology a condition where visibility is significantly reduced by snow or sand, like in a blizzard. So let me guess, someone has no clue what is going on, they're blinded by something or someone. The normal condition of the good guys on the show.

I don't. And don't be shy about it. Enjoying to watch people you find beautiful, attractive is perfectly okay. What would be wrong is to judge people only by their looks. Bu you don't judge them, you judge maybe the show. Was just musing about that as well. I am quite used to short seasons because I watch a lot of British shows (mostly crime shows) and Canadian shows, and seasons there can be even shorter sometimes, just 6-8 episodes, tough 1 hour episodes (full one hour, not the 43 minutes + advertising). Those shows are seldom big ensemble shows, maybe have 2-3 leads or just one, and they're not trying to tell like 3 or 4 different stories at a time. These shows never feel rushed at all, they take their time, even feel sometimes slow compared to US crime shows particular, developing characters slowly, and still manage to stay in the moment, no chase for adrenalin. I don't think it works that well for Once to split up a long season as if it were to single seasons. They pretty much burned two worlds in no time, Neverland and Oz. Of course, nothing really speaks against revisiting the places later again, with some other big story arc, although I doubt they will do that. They played with their toys, and now they got thrown into some corner to be forgotten for the next new toys to play with. There was no need to split the story arcs into two big bad arcs each season while splitting up for a more coherent airing schedule. It's not like in times of online streaming, on demand, and recording (oh, guess what, could do that even already in the analogue ages) people have no ways to keep alive what happened in the first half of the season, binge watching to get into more details, a different view even can be even fun for fans to bridge a break. It can be nice for taking a breath, discuss things. Once is too rushed, doesn't take time to breath and that damages character development, story and takes away fun. Sorry if I am not a fan of 5 minutes fast food cuisine in story telling (not to be mistaken with the art of short stories or something like poetry slam, that is an art I very much enjoy), I like to take time to taste an opulent meal. and even worse, Once has become an opulent meal I am meant to gobble down like a fast food burger. Impossible to stomach in a good way. In the second half of season 2 it began to annoy me, never got why they had to rush to Neverland like they did. The Homeoffice story was the weakest stuff they've written, Tamara and the Red Dragon were absolutely forgettable (in the case of the Dragon a pity), and it made the story arc with Cora suffer as well. They should have waited with the great showdown with Cora to the final episode of season 2, hinted at someone watching and a new big bad coming up, then started season 03 still in Storybrooke, let someone from inside Storybrooke kidnap Henry, Smee, King Georg, the Sherrif of Nottingham, all the evil minions, there were possibilties, people who would have loved to take revenge and get them away from Storybrooke., the Charmings, Emma and Regina and Rumple. Wendy and her brothers being from our world's past I found contrived and unbelievable anyway. And I am sure there could have been ways to isolate Neal from the rest for a while. There was nothing to tell from the Enchanted Forest present time though, they didn't tell how Phillip came back, and the love that doesn't speak it's name side story with Mulan was as bad as it can get (sorry, that was bait, not a decent story). Did they do all that just to show Robin's still around? And then Oz. Such a rich world, intriguing characters with the Wizard and the Witches, and the best they can come up with is some thrill ride with flying monkeys, a joke of a a wizard and a kooky Wicked Witch? The Missing year would have deserved more attention and so did Oz. Again rushed. And hearing all the praise by Paul Lee recently I think they hardly had to worry about more seasons. I don't get the rush in this show. Two big bads a season is not necessary.

from In the Media thread As much as I would like to know more about Emma's time in New York, I struggle to see it on the show for pacing reasons, for compelling story telling. It would have added another set of flashback, and we already had to sets with the Missing Year in the Enchanted Forest and Zelena's life, partially as well playing in the Enchanted Forest past and in Oz. Add present Storybrooke. Could have been more confusing than helpful. Think there might be a reason why they give little time markers (although those created more headaches for anyone aware of timeline details). If they had used one long season (22 episodes) for it all, Missing Year in the Enchanted Forest, Emma in New York, Zelena's background story and present time Storybrooke maybe then it could have worked, with a few more filler episode with fairy tale of the week character in between. But will give more about shorter season, or two half seasons creating maybe more problem than benefits in the All Season Thread. Don't think though that it was much about Emma missing New York but more about Emma not connecting with Storybrooke and the people there as home. It was more about Emma not being able to see her and Henry's future there than actually seeing it somewhere else. It could have helped though to understand Emma better if they had done one episode telling more about her and Henry's time in new York, although I have no idea where to put that into the story of season 3B in way that it would have made sense and moved on the story at least somewhat. Making Neal's definition of home kind Emma's definition doesn't sit right with me. It sound so much like "you don't know what you have until you lose it" - and that was not at all the situation Emma was in IMO. Aw foster kid, that was in the system since birth, given up by her first foster parents when she was 3, and as far as I understood it since in and out of families and group homes, had at best a fictional and imagined idea of what a home could feel like. How could she know what she have when she never really had it and has begun to find it? I was no foster child, just had a bit of dysfunctional family, but even I struggled already to define home in a positive way. Jennifer Morrison seems to have done some research on foster kids, maybe they should listen more to her. The only reason I find acceptable for Emma to work with Neal's definition for the moment is that she in fact had no definition herself grounded in real life so far. The time in New York with Henry as family and defining home for her was based on a fake, fake memories, but the year itself still was time lived a different life. And at the same time it was a bit of a fantasy. And they think that all is solved with sending her back in time (another bit of fantasy, story impression though sure was very real for Emma), and in the end make it point that she finally has become someone in the Storybook, which she was before as baby Emma though already. It's a fairy tale, right.

Pssst, Maybe we should take the discussion to All Season Thread, or what we wish would have happened, or to Emma discussion. Just a suggestion to make life for our mod easier. ;-)

From the Emma thread, by @retrograde That was quite telling to me. In season 1, at least, I thought the show was Emma comes to town and discovers her real family and also all the fairytale crap; Regina was one of the villains, but not the lead character. And I'd hazard a guess that that's the show a lot of people thought they were signing on for. Wonder if people had from the beginning rather diverse ideas what show they're signing for. What made you watch the show? To me Emma was the protagonist and Regina/Evil Queen the antagonist of the story. Didn't expect Regina to be that beyond season 1 though, thought her role would change in some way, be reduced, she was feeling remorse, well, things which didn't happen. Even Snow and Charming were in my view "just" supporting" characters, important to the story, main character even but not the leads. I found sassy Evil Queen and Mayor Regina intriguing as opposite to Emma, while Emma was the character who I wanted to learn more about. Despite Carlyle's brilliant acting Rumple was the character who annoyed me early on as getting too much attention for my taste (guess I am one of the few viewers saying Skin Deep is maybe a well written episode but far from being on any of my top lists), though I could fancy him as the big bad of all seasons. Still think he gets way too much story. Carlyle is really getting the best out of his character, and it is just for him that I find him enjoyable and interesting to watch, but I wouldn't miss Rumple otherwise much on the show, unless he is the ultimate bad of it, and in the end will pay big for the use of all the magic. Tthis show got me in the first place as finally a fantasy show with a bunch of complex, interesting women in the middle of the story. There is a major lack of this in the fantasy genre, no matter what screen, no matter what sub genre. Fantasy is still mostly men heroes, and as a woman and fantasy fan (and sci-fi, situation there is even more dire) I am honestly tired to see the "boys" getting the stories. No offense, I love some show with boys' stories, just would get a more equal share. Not shy to say, I don't mind if in one show they boys' would have to take the back seats. Now Once still puts women quite in the middle of the show, but unfortunately they are not as complex and diverse as I'd hoped for, but quite flat, if not one dimensional, and rather traditional only with more modern outfit (so to speak, not meaning the clothes they actual wear, those are not modern at all, lol). The biggest problem I have by now in general is that it is so much about romance and motherhood (mothers should be honored all year and not just one day, but motherhood is not what alone makes a woman), and that women friendship hardly exists on this show anymore. Women empowering women could give this show so much more, a new twist to fairy tale interpretations and even most modern story telling. I miss Red/Ruby big times because of that. And seeing Belle reduced to Rumple's love puppy breaks my heart. And I dislike, how they made this show so much about Regina and her alleged redemption (and I love Xena, so sure not someone who can't have a heart for the bad, but not so much for the evil like Regina). Season 3B deeply disappointed me, because on the surface and at first it sounded like they would let finally shine Emma again, and give more insights. Though I got a few insights, but I find it easy to understand her character, I don't think that the majority of audience has gotten a better understanding of Emma after these episodes, more the opposite. Making the final episode Emma's big moment without much of a connection to the rest of a season doesn't change that. It was still Regina who had the honours to defeat the big bad of the season (with a bit of team work but that was harldy noticed when I look at reactions and discussions). I started watching this show because of Emma, and complex, "strong" women in the middle of the story. Emma's fairy tale. I don't see it that much anymore in the show, sadly (no, I don't consider Regina or Zelena or Belle or Snow still as complex characters, they are by nearly rather one dimensional). (If anyone wonders: only still watch this show because of having sometimes really great discussions with people like you on forums, that is the fun part by now for me, watching the show has become more of pain)

One thing is, what kind of reaction of Regina learning Rumple killed Zelena would make sense, even in the wonky narrative of this show. The other thing is, that a feeling tells me, they might make her go ballistic just for letting her go ballistic. It's not like they really make that much sense with Regina. Rumple would probably create another sophisticated but nevertheless useless stupid big plan to take revenge, if Regina would learn what he did, tell Belle and so drive Belle to lock herself up in the library for a full weekend, where she would accidentally be trapped in the Neverending Story.

Funny, to me Leo became more sympathetic over time and particular in Bleeding Through, even though the writers probably tried to make Cora look like some poor peasant betrayed by her fiance and some jealous princess. Still think that if Cora hadn't lied, were open about everything earlier, Leo might have reacted differently. I found Leo when we first meet him more of an oldfashioned though generous patriarch, benevolent as ruler but too ready to comply to tradition. With Cora he was a lot more open to break with tradition - maybe the experience with her though made him stick more to the rules. Was Leo saying that he was looking for a new love in his life? No, he was looking for someone to be a mother for Snow. IMO he was a forgiving guy, seeing Regina's good qualities and not letting his negative experience with her mother get in the way. Right, he could have tried to get more background information about Regina before proposing, get a better idea of her own dreams and wishes, and later he could have been more sensitive, recognize Regina was unhappy from the beginning, and addressed it. Leo was disappointed and rightful angry to find out, that Regina seemed to love someone else (which was a setup by her!), but think his anger had more to do with her being dishonest with him and less with her not loving him - after all doubt he ever expected her to love him, just to respect him. From what they showed Leo cared to make Regina happy as his new queen, considering the marriage was for him not about true love but giving her all means to be a good influence in his daughters life (that was what he was hoping for, how wrong he was). I highly doubt that Regina was honest to him with her feelings. Why did Regina had to murder him anyway? Think she could have had a lot power just charming him. The only "reason" I see was to take revenge on Snow. I think even, if Leo would have been truly terrible to Regina, she would have not the least bit hesitated to rub it in. Sorry, but I very much disagree with your views on Regina and even more so on Leo, @Rockybeach and @FavFable.

Doesn't cul de sac mean blind alley, dead-end? English is not my first language so sometimes some special meanings might elude me. But, I mean, dead-end is a rather fitting description for the story telling on this show IMO. And they actually talk about seeing characters as toys on the shelf they want to play with. We said so for a while, didn't we. Guess they think we think that is cool. I will now go into a padded cell for a round of wall banging and rolling on the floor with laughter.

It was rather unlikely, but I liked the stories and even more the music, but I have a thing for the time between the World Wars. On the other hand I don't know much about police process in Philly, so no idea what obligation they might have to follow a new lead regardless, or how they react and have to react to request, what standards they have for working on cold cases. Stilman sure had to account to someone for the hours his detectives spent on whatever case. Kinda have that problem with many crime prodcedurals, there are patterns and formula all over TV. And true, Cold Case was sometimes quite formulistic. But I care little to figure out who did it, there is no thrill or suspense in that mystery for me, besides that it seldom is one, often the perp is clear in the first 5 minutes (to me), even if the writers still send the audience on some alleged who-done-it chase. I find it a lot more interesting anyway to explore the why and the interpersonal dynamics as much as individual struggles of the coppers and the people involved in cases. That is the fun for me to watch crime shows. There was some of that in Cold Case, and that combined with embedding the crime cases into interesting historical moments and events made the show attractive.

Not so sure about the 2nd one. I can see it in the the stories, a potential of something more, profound, Shakespeare, Greek tragedy and drama, but I have more and more doubts that the writers actually put it there. Considering it to be more my head canon so to speak, grew up with a different view on fairy tales and that sure has effects on my perception of Once, or how I read some of the stories. There was a huge influence on my ideas and images of fairy tales by darker, more gruesome versions of fairy tales, the Grimm Brothers and others like Wilhelm Hauff (Hauff's tales could be better described as supernatural horror fairy tales, not actually for kids but somehow ended up being told to kids), Nibelungen, Norse and Greek mythologies. So more the type for the Grimm (tv show) version than Once, and I would prefer Grimm if that show would have a woman as lead. I loved the Disney animation movies for being colorful fun, but it probably tells volumes that my favorite Disney movies are Robin Hood and Junglebook while I more hatewatched the princesses movies (mentioned before even developed an allergy against all this princess stuff, took me decades to overcome the prejudice that princess can't be nothing else but some boring, sweet, shallow-minded beauties cursed to be rescued by some shallow-minded, nameless six-pack beaus). Disney still is mostly fluffy and rather shallow fun to me, including even Frozen (the animated movies, the new live-action Maleficent movie is a different thing). It's okay, Shakespeare did that too, just have some fun stories to entertain. Not saying one excludes the other, though it is the toughest thing to do in writing, to tell a story enjoyable on different levels, but the writers of Once are not that brilliant, though occasionally they might have a moment of brilliance. The audience, we, are reading a lot of things into the show, its stories and characters (that the writers might not have intended in some cases). It is one of the great things of Once, that one can read into it, and quite different things, but as well it is its biggest problem. It speaks to a diverse audience, but that audience has sometimes very divergent and even opposing interpretations and hopes for the show. I have my favorite characters, and sure love to see them with good story lines. But what I favor even more is good story telling. So far I haven't given up watching any show because of a character being sidelined or leaving (on one of my favorite shows by now all of the character and cast has changed), but I've given up on shows where I still loved characters but the story telling went down the drain. Still have some geek fun watching the show, but otherwise my love for it turned more into hatewatching by now, which has little to do with the lack of Red (my fav character, making her the wolf was brilliant) but with stories and plots becoming ridiculous in a bad way, and lack of main character development. It's not about screentime (quantity never equals quality, see Rumple) nor bringing in new characters every episode, the latter worked quite nice in the first season. They turned Regina into a flashy, mental, fairy tale evil caricature of the celebrity kind, giving her sorry excuses for doing evil, no regrets and let her look like the most misunderstood innocent soul of them all, while Snow was turned into a tumbling fool, and Emma is close to becoming the bad guy in the view of some people. The dubious morals of the show as much as their rushed and mediocre story telling is the problem, only somewhat buried by the loud squabble about favorite characters and ships in the fandom. Some character get the attention and others are just supporting characters,though opinions in the fandom differs who is just supporting. I for one don't see anything but supporting characters in Belle, Hook, Robin, Neal and even less in others like Red, Granny, the dwarfs, the fairies or Mulan, Aurora and Phillip. An episode about one of them can help to paint the worlds of Once in more detail, can be okay in giving the main characters and their stories a breather, but I don't see a lack of Belle or Hook stories on the show. I would love to explore the background of Red, would probably watch the hell out of a miniseries with her adventures and giving her more depth, because really love that character, but on this show she is a supporting character, no more no less, missing her because she was presenting friendship, a welcomed relief to all the family and romantic drama, but don't see any need for more Red centric episodes. I liked seeing Belle's adventure with Mulan, i was a nice filler episode, a breather, but that was it, and I have no interest in more Belle centric stories. There is one thing the main characters lack and that is diversity, and there is nearly as little of that with the supporting characters, but that is a different discussion. The most vocal fandom might be the once watching the show mostly for their favorite character or ship, but the fandom is diverse if it comes to who the favorites are, who deserves more story, who even is main character and who just supporting, and pleasing all is impossible, there always will be some character fans displeased. Writing good stories though could be in the realm of the doable.

Didn't Adam&Eddy mumble in interviews before/during season 3 something about a reboot? Would explain a few things (Rumple as Neal 1.0, Zelena a radical of Regina), although as well could call it a pre-quel: The Fairy Tale Wars episode 1&2 (and epsiode 3 is ahead), telling much of the background story of Darth Rumple, how it all started with him as a young boy just whishing to be with his father and a feeling to be meant for something greater. (No, I don't fancy Star Wars episodes 1-3, besides Natalie Portman and Christoper Lee it was just stunning CGI - any tax accountant is a better fairy tale storyteller). Instead of working out the kink and make the program run better and more smooth they managed on Once to put in even more kinks, so that it runs now even worse, more bumps and plenty of dead links.

Not necessarily. As long as it is a strictly non-commercial fan creation they might tolerate it. Quite like they mostly tolerate fan fiction. Different from what some think fan fiction is not per se fair use, has to be decided case by case.

It is an interesting theory and would be a nice tie in, if Elsa created the harsh winter Snow was born in, just wonder if people realize, that that could mean that Elsa is probably even slightly older than Regina. Could of course be that aging is very differently in the Fairy Tale lands, or at least Elsa with her powers ages differently, but Elsa caused that harsh winter when she came of age, and depending on when that is in her kingdom she was at least 16, or 18 or maybe 21 years old. Would put her more at the end 30s/early 40s spectrum. Of course Elsa could have spend some time in the urn, while Anna and Kristoff where somewhere in frozen suspense and not aging until that Dark Curse hit, or we might meet Anna and Kristoff only in fairy backs. But that's just details, the writers of Once don't care much about details at times anyway. ;-)

Psssssttt! ( What was this memory wipe spell again? Where is the book of spells, when I need it...)

Women are underrepresented on screen (TV and movie) in number, makes it already harder to get enough diversity of women. But worse societal images of what makes a woman a woman, feminine, attractive, good woman limit it even more. And somehow it is stuck in our images, obviously and subtle, that a woman is a woman because she can be a mother. If not, she has to have a good reason for it, and success in career is not always good enough reason. That doesn't mean on the other hand that being a mother stands (or should stand) in the way of being a modern, independend woman with manifold interests. We can have it all, it's a matter of reorganizing society and especially work places, not just a matter of women having jobs, there has to be done a lot more. I wish more men would fight for having time with their family as well for example, because though it has been made a gender role problem, it is a gender role problem, it is about how we organize things and not that we are men and women and other genders. And would be great to see some of it on screen. Fiction reflects on society, as it is, as well as it can play with ideas and show options how things can be done differently. It as okay and as womanly to want to be a mother, to have children as it is to not want to have children or not to have children out of whatever reason. For many women it is not clear cut one or the other, and we change or minds or not. We are diverse and that is great. It will be interesting to see if there will be a change on screen seeing that the number of women coming now of age who had no children out of whatever reasons or circumstances is growing in our societies. I love Helen Mirren, who is an image of change for me, of a different view on women and women coming of age. Her and some of her characters, particular DCI/Detective Superintendent Jane Tennison. By the way, and tell you all to better sit down and take a deep breath before reading it, if you not already know it: Tatiana Maslany plays a younger version of a character played by Helen Mirren in the movie The Woman in Gold. Filming is under way, might come on theater screens in 2015. Can it get any better than that? There is slow progress. Like women in The Good Wife, Diane Lockhart (Christine Baranski) is such an interesting character (and what I sure what call a "strong" female character, complex, strong and vulnerable, independent but not a lone wolf) as is Alicia Florrick (Julianna Margulies). Patricia C. Hewes (Glenn Close) on Damages comes to mind also. Anyone wanting to see women beyond their 40s, though many of them still are mothers, but that is not all what defines them, should take a look at British productions and especially at the works of Sally Wainright like Last Tango in Halifax, Happy Valley, Scott&Baily (some of it has been shown or is available in the US as well). Sadly crime and law shows seem to bit more progressive than other drama and even more than family shows. But that might be just my impression, family and drama is not that much on my watch list.

I found Belle more interesting when they turned her into Lacey, and that sentence again made her more interesting as a character, made the relationship with Rumple more interesting to me. But I admittedly suffer since childhood a (Disney-) Princess-allergy, I find these sweet,perfect, good looking, allegedly good hearted, spoiled brats getting happy endings all the time annoying ;) They even made me strongly dislike pink and find sky blue only nice to see in the sky (Cinderella's skirts, ugh, still struggled with it watching Frozen). There is more complexity to it if Belle is not just seeing the good guy in Rumple, feeling pity and empathy, and out of the vast goodness of her heart fell in love with him and is trying to salvage the good in him, but if as well she's drawn to the darker side. It could be interesting to explore an ambiguous, quite icky sort of romantic relationship, where one can wonder, if to call it abusive or if two people are there honestly enjoying each other, no power imbalance though things look odd to outsiders. There are people drawn to power, agressiveness and even brutality and quite sure not because they sense anything good in a person to be salvaged, they are interested in that dark side of them. Who says that only people with a good heart can truly love? It could though be not a happy ending couple, because we need the good to prevail, and either they both change or they perish together. But maybe not on mainstream broadcast show. And it would be a very delicate thing to write, so one that would have to be treated with plenty more of thoughts and caution. Even more so when looking around what else is happening on screen and off it. Shows like GoT walk plenty of minefields without any regards, or look at the newest song and video by this Ticke guy. I am all for passion and lust, but sure not for sanctioning or even celebrating obsessive, abasing and abusive behavior. What makes what they do with Rumple and Belle problematic to me is that they don't handle it much as a problematic relationship, let alone that plenty of people in the audience equal it with the fluffy Disney animated version. The Beauty and the Beast tale always had an icky side to it, more or less visible depending on the interpretation (the only I find mostly acceptable as a romance was the 80s TV show inspired by it with Linda Hamilton and Ron Perlman). It's not the writers responsibility if some in the audience might have skewed views on things at times, some of my views seem skewed to others as well, but they don't make it any easier to sort it out better with their writing and even less some of what they said in interviews. It's not just Rumbelle, look at Regina and Graham. And I get why some people have a problem with Emma and Hook even though I think they walk the fine line a bit better with them. It's a show about love, but love can have dark sides or come in dark forms. One can question if it then still should be called love, but well people do call their obsessive attractions love. But then this show would need to grow up, get serious and stop being this geek fun play night at a toy shop with soap opera touch it more is at the moment.

An interesting view, not one I agree with though. But I am curious. If being absent and fighting tyranny is something a parent shouldn't do, then what is Robin in your opinion, a good or a bad father? After all it sounds like he wasn't home either, he was not around to protect his wife and child, as should have been his task as a good husband and father, or? Wasn't Marian acting as good wife and mother when doing what she could to protect her family in the probable absence of her husband, who was working somewhere as honorable thief? Was it bad of Marian to protect her child by taking the threat away from her home, so that at least her child would not get into the hands of the Evil Queen?