The Writers of OUAT: Because, Um, Magic, That's Why

[KingOfHearts]

The writers could get away with a lot of ridiculous shenanigans at this stage. It doesn't have to take itself seriously, and the characters have been twisted around so much that they could be pushed into anything. I found 6A to be too conservative for what the Land of Untold Stories could have been. I want to see world-hopping and fun craziness. The Wish Realm was the perfect opportunity to embrace that, but we got Regina killing Snowing instead. All the other plots have been very stock. For writers who like shiny things, they don't really let the show go unhinged. They don't risk anything or acknowledge that the situations are a bit silly. The show was never meant to be a serious art piece. It was meant to be a Disney mishmash with a dramatic edge. It bothers me that they have an entire multiverse at their disposal, and we're stuck with the main characters running around Storybrooke, spewing nothing of value in boring dialogue scenes. (They don't have to be boring, but A&E don't know how kitchen sink conversations work.) They've got nothing to lose. Might as well go nuts.

I don't understand why they don't just bank on what fans want. They shouldn't be trying to get new viewers. Fan service, like a romantic Captain Swan wedding, would generate much more attention than what's usually in the pipeline. Don't they want people tweeting and posting kiss GIFs on Tumblr? They like shock value and big reactions, so why do they stick to the most uninteresting routes possible?

Edited February 19, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Rumsy4]

1 hour ago, KingOfHearts said:

why do they stick to the most uninteresting routes possible

It's becasue they legitimately believe that constant angst and drama is what's interesting. They don't seem to realize that charatcers need to breathe--the story needs to breathe--and so does the audience. They seem to almost pride themselves on these two things--the unexpected "twist", and character regression. Constant twists that come out of nowhere and frequent character regression is a sign of lack of creativity and originality, laziness, and fear. It's a huge turn-off to both loyal and casual viewers alike. 

Edited February 19, 2017 by Rumsy4

[kitticup]

Sometimes I wonder if they think that because they market an arc as being about Emma, they then have to make it about Regina.  I wonder if they tell ABC look we tried an Emma arc but it didn't work so we need Regina, failing or willfully ignoring that they never delivered.  I hate that the first four episodes always focus on the same characters each arc, never giving new viewers a chance to bond with other characters before they tune out after the fourth.

[Free]

13 hours ago, kitticup said:

Sometimes I wonder if they think that because they market an arc as being about Emma, they then have to make it about Regina.  I wonder if they tell ABC look we tried an Emma arc but it didn't work so we need Regina, failing or willfully ignoring that they never delivered.  I hate that the first four episodes always focus on the same characters each arc, never giving new viewers a chance to bond with other characters before they tune out after the fourth.

They don't seem interested in Emma's character or her story, they seem bored almost every time they set something up around her and then want to move on to something else entirely.

[maryle]

Unfortunately this season totally proven that for me.  Even if she is directly concern by 2 of the major storyline ( BF via Gideon and the savior fate)  and the writers and promo always play that she could die this year.  She really appear to be the second player in both storyline. 

Helas! For CS fans Emma is not the priority anymore more a useful player to create easy angst or  link between character and plot. 

[KingOfHearts]

Oddly enough, the show actually does have a lot of one-on-one conversations. We complain about the lack of them, but we're really wanting meaningful ones that progress the characters. The character dialogue usually falls under:
1. Exposition, such as Rumple and Ingrid discussing cold fronts and Zelena bragging about her horrible life to Regina.
2. The characters reacting to plot for plot purposes alone. Snow is upset the Author is going to blow their secret, Rumple is mad at the Evil Queen for meddling in his relationship with Belle, etc. It's not about organic reactions, since whatever they feel is to fuel the plot. It has nothing to do with their humanity.
3. Conversations about Regina, even when it's inappropriate.
4. Very brief conversations just to tell the audience the characters do have moments. The scenes are too short to qualify as breathing room, but they only exist only to imply downtime exists in their universe. This always falls flat because it disobeys the "show, don't tell" principle.

Edited February 23, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Curio]

1. Exposition: "So you're telling me Little Miss Muffet was behind the kidnappings the entire time? Why would she lie about Mr. Spider?"

2. Reaction to Plot: "We don't have time to be asking why Miss Muffet and Mr. Spider are working together. We need to figure out what we're going to do now to stop her. Any ideas?"

3. Requisite Regina Dialogue: "Hey, where's Regina? She said she would be here 10 minutes ago. OMG DID SHE GET KIDNAPPED BY MISS MUFFET TOO?!?! EVERYBODY FREAK OUT THAT THE PERSON WHO HAS MAGIC HASN'T CHECKED IN FOR A FEW MINUTES!!! WE NEED TO GO FIND HER!"

4. Brief Conversation: "I suppose that means we're putting our Netflix date on pause again..."

Edited February 23, 2017 by Curio

[KingOfHearts]

So, here's an interesting question - if the writers needed to keep Regina on the show, how could do they do that while preventing the townspeople from burning her at the stake? In S2, the writers dropped the angry mob bit rather abruptly, then proceeded to relegate any disdain to Grumpy's one-liners. But how would you logically keep her relevant without being a straight-up villain? If she were obviously evil for a long time, we would be wondering why no one killed her already. But if she truly redeemed herself right away, no one would believe it. I'm curious to hear some alternative solutions for S2 that would function in the long-term.

Edited February 24, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

In Season 2, I think that would have been very do-able.  The Writers have dug themselves into a hole which has gotten worse with every season, but a lot of that is rooted in the choices they made in 2B.

Quote

if the writers needed to keep Regina on the show, how could do they do that while preventing the townspeople from burning her at the stake?

Many of us on this message board agree that magic should never have come to Storybrooke, but since magic did come to Storybrooke, it made sense why people didn't kill her - because she still had powers.  I do think that there should have been MORE townspeople trying to kill her throughout Season 2 and 3.  But they would mostly leave her alone and shun her for the same reason they would shun Rumple.  Speaking of which, people should have been attacking him too when he was so vulnerable in 5A.

The real difficulty is how to keep Regina walking around free in town without making Snow, Charming and Emma look incompetent, or worse, like her apologizers.  I think Regina having the magical upper-hand would suffice for a bit.  After that, the only route would be to slowly and believably redeem her, making her into a tenuous ally NOT make Snow and Emma her needy BFF wannabe's.

Quote

ow would you logically keep her relevant without being a straight-up villain?

I don't think there was room for her to be a straight-up villain past Season 1.  As with other shows with reformed villains, the writers could have eventually diverted her anger towards other villains.

Quote

But if she truly redeemed herself right away, no one would believe it.

I agree it couldn't be fast.  But the thing is Season 1 Regina was still redeemable.  It was A&E turning Regina into a genocidal dictator who killed innocent villagers which made her impossible to redeem.  I think they did a decent job in 2A showing Regina struggle, but they also needed to have her face consequences, of people she had wronged.  The obvious arc in 2B that many people have mentioned is for Regina to finally realize that Cora was the one at fault, and then be the one to kill her.  That would also show the town that as much as they hate her, they still need Regina.  Snow had many other interesting stories than dealing with that dumb black spot in her heart.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Camera One

[Curio]

I think there are a few simple fixes.

1. Cut back on the increasingly evil flashbacks. Regina didn't cross the moral event horizon until the village massacre at the end of Season 2. Up until that point, she was a villain but could have been redeemed after several years of knocking her down a few pegs.
2. Speaking of knocking down pegs, let Regina get knocked down. Don't let her live in her mansion. Don't let her have magic. Don't let her get away with murdering Graham. Let her trip and fall in mud. Let her look ugly once in a while. 
3. Don't let her be BFFs with Snow and Emma. And also, allow Snow and Emma to properly blame Regina for separating the Charming family for 28 years.
4. Specifically in Season 2, Regina needed to realize Cora was the main villain and turn on her for killing Daniel.

I honestly don't think it would have been too difficult to pull all of that off. That's where I thought they were taking the story when I was watching the show the first time. The fact that they haven't hit any of those points yet is baffling.

Or...what @Camera One said.

[Camera One]

4 minutes ago, Curio said:

The fact that they haven't hit any of those points yet is baffling.

It truly is.  In five and half freak'in seasons.  AND they kept making the situation WORSE in terms of adding atrocities to her bold and audacious backstory (#1), keeping Regina the Mayor, with everything she could ever want, while having her complain that she has it worst of all (#2), subjecting us to BFF Emma and Snow conversations where they actually THANK her for destroying their lives and apologize for being her victim (#3) and continually trying to make Cora seem less of a monster with numerous guest spots (#4).

Edited February 24, 2017 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

5 minutes ago, Curio said:

• Cut back on the increasingly evil flashbacks. Regina didn't cross the moral event horizon until the village massacre at the end of Season 2. Up until that point, she was a villain but could have been redeemed after several years of knocking her down a few pegs.
• Speaking of knocking down pegs, let Regina get knocked down. Don't let her live in her mansion. Don't let her have magic. Don't let her get away with murdering Graham. Let her trip and fall in mud. Let her look ugly once in a while. 
• Don't let her be BFFs with Snow and Emma. And also, allow Snow and Emma to properly blame Regina for separating the Charming family for 28 years.
• Specifically in Season 2, Regina needed to realize Cora was the main villain and turn on her for killing Daniel.

Yeah, that pretty much does it. If they wanted to keep her around, she needed to have had a huge epiphany there on the clock tower when Cora killed Snow's nurse in spite of Snow turning over the dagger and then teamed up with Snow and company to take Cora down. She'd need to apologize to Snow and Emma. Maybe lose her magic power in whatever she did to defeat Cora.

But as I've just written on the All Seasons thread, I think the show would have been stronger if they'd treated her like any other villain and wrote her out after she was defeated. A lot of the writing problems on this show come down to them trying to have two equal protagonists, so they have to write Emma's personal arc, her developing romance, her relationship with Henry and her parents. And they have to write Regina's personal arc, her developing romance and romantic woes, her relationship with Henry, her relationship with Snow, and her family issues. So one thing they'd need to do to keep Regina around is not treat her like a protagonist. Maybe cover her ongoing redemption, but don't worry about giving her a love interest, a lot of personal arcs, relatives, etc. Don't introduce any new characters who are only linked to Regina and have no relationship and little interaction with any other characters.

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

So one thing they'd need to do to keep Regina around is not treat her like a protagonist. Maybe cover her ongoing redemption, but don't worry about giving her a love interest, a lot of personal arcs, relatives, etc. Don't introduce any new characters who are only linked to Regina and have no relationship and little interaction with any other characters.

Regina fails as a protagonist on a fundamental level. Protagonists need to progress and develop over time. That is much more crucial for a main character than any side role. IMO, Emma's development stopped at the end of S3, but at least there's some visible change. While I don't think her steps have been handled very well, I've accepted they happened. She understands she's the daughter of Snow White and Prince Charming, she has taken responsibility as Henry's mother, she has opened her heart to love, etc. She's not the same woman we met in the Pilot. Regina, on the other hand, has come full circle and started blaming someone else for her boyfriend's untimely death. The only difference is now she's not murdering others in cold blood. Her relationships with her enemies are not a result of her own progress, but rather the adopted notions of the people around her. They changed for her, she didn't change for them.

Edited February 24, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Rumsy4]

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

The real difficulty is how to keep Regina walking around free in town without making Snow, Charming and Emma look incompetent, or worse, like her apologizers.

Snow's subjects, like her, apparently subscribe to the notion that as long as they are happy, the Evil Queen can kill other people and raze neighboring villages galore. That's the best revenge, or something like that.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Rumsy4

[Camera One]

That's a fail on the part of the Writers.  Though I suppose I'm finding it difficult too to come up with a way to make Snowing and the subjects of the kingdom be smart, and yet let Regina roam free.  I'm sure there is a way though, and I'm not a former writer of "Lost".

Edited February 24, 2017 by Camera One

[andromeda331]

2 hours ago, Curio said:

I think there are a few simple fixes.

1. Cut back on the increasingly evil flashbacks. Regina didn't cross the moral event horizon until the village massacre at the end of Season 2. Up until that point, she was a villain but could have been redeemed after several years of knocking her down a few pegs.
2. Speaking of knocking down pegs, let Regina get knocked down. Don't let her live in her mansion. Don't let her have magic. Don't let her get away with murdering Graham. Let her trip and fall in mud. Let her look ugly once in a while. 
3. Don't let her be BFFs with Snow and Emma. And also, allow Snow and Emma to properly blame Regina for separating the Charming family for 28 years.
4. Specifically in Season 2, Regina needed to realize Cora was the main villain and turn on her for killing Daniel.

I honestly don't think it would have been too difficult to pull all of that off. That's where I thought they were taking the story when I was watching the show the first time. The fact that they haven't hit any of those points yet is baffling.

Or...what @Camera One said.

 

2 hours ago, Camera One said:

It truly is.  In five and half freak'in seasons.  AND they kept making the situation WORSE in terms of adding atrocities to her bold and audacious backstory (#1), keeping Regina the Mayor, with everything she could ever want, while having her complain that she has it worst of all (#2), subjecting us to BFF Emma and Snow conversations where they actually THANK her for destroying their lives and apologize for being her victim (#3) and continually trying to make Cora seem less of a monster with numerous guest spots (#4).

 

2 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

Yeah, that pretty much does it. If they wanted to keep her around, she needed to have had a huge epiphany there on the clock tower when Cora killed Snow's nurse in spite of Snow turning over the dagger and then teamed up with Snow and company to take Cora down. She'd need to apologize to Snow and Emma. Maybe lose her magic power in whatever she did to defeat Cora.

But as I've just written on the All Seasons thread, I think the show would have been stronger if they'd treated her like any other villain and wrote her out after she was defeated. A lot of the writing problems on this show come down to them trying to have two equal protagonists, so they have to write Emma's personal arc, her developing romance, her relationship with Henry and her parents. And they have to write Regina's personal arc, her developing romance and romantic woes, her relationship with Henry, her relationship with Snow, and her family issues. So one thing they'd need to do to keep Regina around is not treat her like a protagonist. Maybe cover her ongoing redemption, but don't worry about giving her a love interest, a lot of personal arcs, relatives, etc. Don't introduce any new characters who are only linked to Regina and have no relationship and little interaction with any other characters.

This yes. Regina could have a had a really great redemption arc. Regina really should have had an epiphany on the clock tower and there were places before we could have seen Regina building towards it. First when she realized she was doing the same thing to Henry her mother did to her in the second episode, finally giving up on bringing Daniel back, and being asked to step down as Mayor. There could have been more here and there throughout every episode. Regina started therapy. She should have lost her home or been attacked by people. She was surrounded by people who were ripped apart from their families, from their homes in the latest of what the Evil Queen had done to them. Don't forget she terrorized them back home too.  They had so much to work with to redeem Regina. It could have given Regina a lot of really great scenes. Yes she could have faltered as she changed, had some back slides, but still worked on redeeming herself, They chose none of it and to do nothing but make a sudden switch that Regina was redeemed and everyone loved her. While showing even more horrible crimes she's done. Slaughtering entire villages, still blaming other people for everything, and still never apologizing for anything she has done. Or apologizing to people she's victimized.

And all of this is along side someone who actually is being redeemed Hook.

[Camera One]

Hook shows they know how to redeem someone and keep them redeemed.  I really think it's A&E's obsession with The Evil Queen.  They can't get enough of her and get a real kick out of her murdering people.  Dumbest Writers' Room ever who decided Regina, uh I mean The Evil Queen killing a groom for having a bad day was a good idea.

Edited February 25, 2017 by Camera One

[Curio]

The way the writers handled Regina in 2A needed to be repeated in 2B, and all of Season 3, and probably most of Season 4 as well. It needed to be long and gradual. But since Regina is A&E's favorite character and they wanted to give her shiny new things all the time, they caved. I could see the writers looking back at 2A and thinking that Regina suffered so much and that those few episodes were enough to wipe away everything else Regina had ever done. 

[Souris]

There are times when I wonder if this show is some sort of weird social experiment by A&E, to see how far they can go in having what they show be in opposition to what they say, and have people believe the latter over the former.

And then I realize, nah, they're not that intelligent.

[Shanna Marie]

Keeping a popular villain around is one of the biggest pitfalls of TV series writing. If they keep the villain around as a villain, they get the incompetence problem -- both sides look like idiots if they can't win against each other over multiple seasons. The villains look incompetent if they can't carry out their evil schemes over all that time, and the heroes look incompetent if they can't defeat the villains year after year. If they totally redeem the villains, there's the risk that they'll lose what made them fun. A lot of fans like the villains for their evil. Even as good as Hook's redemption has been, there have been complaints that he's become boring. Or then you get the Regina situation, where they try to have it both ways, just declaring that she's good now but without really changing her.

I think it is possible to pull it off. They come close with Hook, and I think if they hadn't more or less ditched him to focus on Regina and if they weren't hung up on doom and gloom, they could have kept some of his fun even while redeeming him.

With Regina, they could have made it work if they hadn't thrown in the village slaughter. You can't play the "we have more shades of gray than the Disney versions and the fairy tales" and make the villain even worse than her movie or fairy tale counterpart. If all she'd done was go after Snow, there might have been some hope for her (though there is still the fact of Leopold's murder, where it's hard to see how Snow could get over that, and Graham's murder, where it's hard to see how Emma could get over it or get over not knowing about it). Then they could have continued on the path she was on after 2A. She might still have had the sad eyes when not being invited to dinner, but with the self-awareness that this was what she'd brought on herself. When she learned that Cora had been masterminding it all along, she should have flipped sides. She should have lost her magic somehow in defeating Cora, maybe as a sacrifice. She should have lost her office as mayor, and then lost her home. Helping fight Greg and Tamara and not having been the one to create and get out the failsafe but helping stop it might have been a good start, then working with them in Neverland might have helped them be willing to tolerate her. She should have apologized, of course. It should have taken a lot more before they really wanted to trust her, and I'm not sure I could ever see them becoming BFFs or them working so hard to get her a happy ending. They could have kept some of her sass by making it clear that it was a defensive mechanism to hide the vulnerability she felt because of her sense of guilt. I know some Regina fans have claimed that this is what's going on with her, but the fact that she's demanding a happy ending and doing the same thing to Zelena that she did to Snow suggests that she doesn't actually feel bad, that she hasn't learned anything.

[Katherine]

I think there's been quite a bit of discussion about the writers' tendency to care more about shocking the audience rather than satisfying them. They aim to write twists that no one can see coming, and it's often at the expense of good (and logical) storytelling. I saw this article about the general trend of "no spoilers" and it immediately made me think of Once:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/03/30/the-people-v-o-j-simpson-proves-our-no-spoilers-culture-is-utterly-ridiculous/?tid=a_inl-amp&utm_term=.ef3d86b5c970

Sometimes it seems like Adam and Eddy get this weird sense of pleasure from teasing the audience and taking the show in a direction that no one can possibly see coming. I've noticed that many writers seem overly concerned about spoilers. I can understand wanting to keep an element of surprise, but in the case of Once, it often comes at the expense of emotionally satisfying payoff.

I can't remember if it was in this thread, but someone mentioned Harry Potter as an example of a story where many fans guessed certain plot points, because JK rowling had laid all the groundwork and given clues along the way. So for many fans, seeing all of these predictions come true was really satisfying. Whereas with Once, if fans were to guess certain plot points based on actual clues, I bet Adam and Eddy would make last minute changes to the story just so that they could feel like they pulled one over on the audience. I just don't understand why shock value is so important, particularly with a show like Once. Most fans aren't watching Once for its mysteries and twists; they're watching for the characters and the fun fairytale elements.

[Camera One]

Before TV and films, there were books.  And many readers of books didn't want to know the ending to a story before they read it either.  It was just harder to find out back then because there wasn't the internet and there wasn't social media and there wasn't hand-held devices connected to internet and social media 24/7.  Nowadays, it seems like there are FEWER people who want to be spoiler-free, not more.

Having said that, I do agree that A&E care more about surprising the audience than about telling a well-developed story.  They live on their "twists".  I suspect that EVERY episode is actually written by figuring out the twist first, because there are twists in every episode, usually in the flashbacks.  Ditto for all their arcs.

So many shows are sensationalist, and this has been for awhile now.  "Who Dies This Week?" is pretty much the question for many shows, especially during sweeps.  And the writers are counting on their viewers to tune in to be surprised.

Edited February 25, 2017 by Camera One

[Curio]

Quote

I saw this article about the general trend of "no spoilers" and it immediately made me think of Once:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/03/30/the-people-v-o-j-simpson-proves-our-no-spoilers-culture-is-utterly-ridiculous/?tid=a_inl-amp&utm_term=.ef3d86b5c970

 

 

Can I get an AMEN? Seriously, that whole article nails it. Sure, there are some television shows where it's genuinely nice not knowing what plots are coming up. I watch a few shows where I don't follow spoilers and I can admit that the reveals are more satisfying when I don't know the endings. But I also don't obsess over those shows. I don't discuss them online and nitpick scripts apart. They're just something that make me smile each week and then I go back to my normal routine.

The fact that OUAT has a bunch of Disney characters as its main characters makes it even more puzzling why A&E are obsessed with twists. Disney is currently going through all of its classic animated films and remaking them into live action films; they're not changing the narratives at all. Everyone knows Cinderella will lose her glass slipper and marry the prince. Everyone knows Emma Watson is going to fall in love with the Beast. Everyone knows that Jon Favreau's The Lion King will pale in comparison to the original animated film, but people will still go watch it because they loved the original film. With all of these movies, people go in knowing exactly how the entire movie will play out, yet these movies will still make millions at the box office and fans will enjoy them. And like that article suggests, the success won't be because of the twists and turns, it's because the audience want to enjoy the journey and the details. I know how Hamilton ends, but I still want to see the musical. I know how Romeo and Juliet plays out, but I'll still watch movie adaptations.

There's a reason people go back and rewatch their favorite films or music—even though we know exactly what will happen, it's comforting and exciting to experience a quality work of art. When I listen to an album for the twentieth time, I'm not bored by it because I'm awaiting the exact moment a certain chord or guitar lick is played. So for A&E to claim that OUAT is more enjoyable when you don't know what's going to happen is a total copout. OUAT should be entertaining regardless of #nospoilers culture.

Of course, the mystery genre exists for a reason because people like being surprised and they enjoy trying to piece together clues. (Piecing together the mystery of random clues is practically the whole reason why the Spoilers Thread is so popular.) But a show can't exist entirely on the twist and nothing else because it loses its rewatch value, and a show can't introduce random MacGuffins during the eleventh hour and deny the audience the opportunity to solve the mystery earlier in the season. And that's the category OUAT falls under. When A&E spend all their time and effort on the plots and twists and don't spend enough time developing the characters, there's no reason to go back and watch earlier episodes. The twist might be exciting the first time, but the story details and the character journeys are the reason people rewatch things. I would go back and rewatch 6A if there were scenes of Emma and Hook cooking dinner and watching Netflix, but those scenes don't exist. So why should I go back and rewatch?

Edited February 25, 2017 by Curio

[Shanna Marie]

I think part of the problem is that writers seem to have conflated "spoilers" and "figuring things out." A spoiler is when someone who actually knows what is going to happen due to having some kind of information -- having read/seen it, having seen filming, etc. -- shares information about what's going to happen. That's not the same thing as someone putting together clues based on episodes that have aired. A viewer following a trail of breadcrumbs and figuring out what's going on isn't being "spoiled." As we've seen in this show, the only way to avoid that kind of non-spoiler is to make the plot utterly nonsensical so that it's impossible to figure out, and that, to me, is worse than being too easy to figure out. At least if it's too easy to figure out, it's honest. Being random and withholding information isn't playing fair with the audience.

I think this fear of people knowing what will happen has a lot to do with the problems in recent seasons. They're so focused on surprise that they don't bother to let us know what the villains want or why they want it until the end of the arc, so it's no longer just about surprising us with the way things are resolved, but surprising us with what the villains are after. But if we and the heroes don't know what the villains are up to, the heroes can't do anything about it, and that means there isn't really any conflict, and therefore there's no story. There's just a villain being a villain because of Reasons, and the heroes are opposed to them because of the villain thing but can't do much of anything other than talk about hope, and then in the last two episodes in a big surprise we learn what the villain wants and why and the heroes can finally do something.

So we never did learn what Hyde really wanted or why he brought over the Untold Stories people. We still don't know what the Evil Queen really wants. We didn't learn what Hades was really after until the very end (and we never did get a good insight as to why). We didn't learn what Dark Emma was up to and why until the end, didn't learn what Nimue wanted until the end -- it was all a Surprise!Twist! We didn't learn what Rumple wanted with the Author until near the end. Maleficent and Ursula hung out in town with the people who wronged them without doing anything about it until it was their turn for the episode with that backstory because we needed to save the surprise for that episode.

You don't necessarily have to spell it all out at the start, but we need to know something. In season one, we knew from the start that Regina wanted revenge on Snow and that was why she cast the curse. We didn't learn the seed of the reason until later, but we'd seen enough to know what she wanted and could tell where things were going. We knew from Hook's first episode what he wanted and why. The surprise was what he would actually do and how it would affect him. Now, though, they want to keep all of it a secret, so we're stuck watching villains walk around villaining with no real purpose, and when they have no real purpose, that means the heroes also have no purpose (and apparently the heroes aren't allowed to have their own goals). And you get a lot of boring episodes with one or two episodes full of surprise twists that no one cares about anymore.

[Souris]

I would like that post a million times if I could @Shanna Marie!

[Kktjones]

I completely agree with all of this! It would have been so satisfying after the Dark!Hook reveal to go back to watch earlier episodes and be able to say "Now it makes sense why he was acting that way" or "Now I get why Emma did this or that". Instead, there were no clues and when you go back to the clues they did leave don't even make sense with the ultimate reveal (i.e. Emma's comments to the group at the end of 5x01). The same can be said for the "Zelena is Marian" twist, but in that case I'm guessing there were no clues b/c they didn't decide they were going to do that until later in the story.

[Camera One]

Due to their whole focus on the "big twist", when it fails, it makes the entire arc feel pointless.  Clearly, a lot of so-called planning for 6A was based on the Gideon-Is-Evil-Rumbelle-Baby reveal.  The connection to the other subplot (Emma's death prophesy) was tenuous at best.  Nothing in the entirety of 6A leads to the Hooded Figure being Gideon.  Nothing hinted that Gideon would neutralize The Evil Queen.  And why there is so little anticipation for 6B is, I couldn't care less about Gideon even though he's the lynchpin that ties the subplots together.  This was a case where the 6A finale would have been equally unenjoyable whether you knew the Gideon spoiler or not.

Edited February 25, 2017 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

I am a spoilers junkie. I actually don't like being surprised, because I don't like being disappointed while I'm watching the show. I will purposely go to Wikipedia ahead of time to read plots so I know what's coming up. Not everyone is like that, but I seem to recall some study where it was found people responded more positively to books, movies, etc. if they were aware of the ending. (Don't quote me on that because I can't find the article and the science could be debatable.) But, I've spoken to people who hate spoilers and also to those who deliberately ask me for them ahead of time. Adam's crusade to prevent spoilers is laughable considering, A) BTS photos almost always spoil major plot points, and B) there's all sorts of spoiler media on the web that the network counts on to drum up hype. (That's why they give advanced showings to the press and release all sorts of stuff early.) I'm not saying Adam should just spell out everything that's going to happen, but there's a way to reveal information without giving everything away. I've seen other showrunners give just enough to leave their fans wanting more.

[andromeda331]

I'm split 50-50 some shows I don't want to be spoiled so I'll avoid the spoilers because I really want to enjoy the ride, try and figure things out myself and enjoy being surprised. Once used to fall under that category. From the very first episode it was fun trying to guess who each character was and enjoying watching the show unfold. Wondering why Rumple gave Regina the curse, why he was so helpful to Emma, Snow and Charming, wondering what each character's story was and the surprise of each new character (or as much as one could be with the advertising) and how they knew each other. Snow and Red Riding Hood were best friends. Charming was the Prince and the Pauper, Rumple killed Cinderella's stepmother, Snow and Charming were guests at Cinderella's wedding, Emma and Snow end up back in the Enchanted Forest and briefly prisoners of Mulan and Aurora.

But now it really doesn't matter there's no point in guessing each character or what their story unfold. For the most part we never get a story, we get a disjointed thing where none of the pieces go together, it doesn't make any sense you never learn anything about any character and most of it goes nowhere.  You know pretty much what everyone is going to say and do before they do it Regina will talk about herself, how she's suffered, and what ever she wants to do everyone will go along with it, Snow's only talks about hope and being one Regina's biggest cheerleaders, Emma is too but will also take breaks to talk to Hook for a second or two or about her Walls, Henry will do something stupid and not get in trouble, Rumple will lie and betray everyone Belle will get made and leave him and come back. There are no surprises, the ride isn't fun, and hasn't been for a long time. There really isn't any point to staying way from the spoilers or to learning about them because we will never find out why anyone is doing anything like Hyde wanted to get to Storybrook and brought all those people with, there's no point to finding out or guessing who each character because if your spoiled and learn that Edmond Dantes is coming, he was nothing like the character, he's just another in a long line of characters that were nothing like their fictional character. The Evil Queen, Hades, the Appentice, Merlin, nothing any of these people did made any sense. Nothing means anything.

Edited February 26, 2017 by andromeda331

[Camera One]

3 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Nothing means anything.

Thank you for your compliments about the complexity of the show, Andromeda331.  Nothing can indeed mean anything in our universe, from Rumple spinning straw into gold to even the possibility of a happy ending turning into something so much more!

- A&E

[Rumsy4]

Thank you for converting us all to nihilism, A&E! At least as far as the Show is concerned. That speaks to the deep philosophical tone of the writing, of course!

[KingOfHearts]

19 minutes ago, Rumsy4 said:

Thank you for converting us all to nihilism, A&E! At least as far as the Show is concerned. That speaks to the deep philosophical tone of the writing, of course!

Have hope, but life is meaningless. Yep, sounds like A&E.

[KAOS Agent]

In church this evening they cited Peter 3:15, which includes the line "Always be prepared to articulate a defense to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." I know it wasn't the message I was supposed to take from it, but my mind went immediately to Once and its indefensible message of hope. I'd love for the writers to try to articulate a defense for the show's hope. Why do they believe in it? It doesn't exist. These characters' lives generally suck and it's not like it's ever getting better. Looking for the small moments is fine, but it's not really a fun or happy way to live life jumping from one life threatening crisis to another. Why do they have hope? Do try to defend it to me.

[Camera One]

They've never had to explain it since they state it as if it were fact.  It doesn't help that all they get are insipid questions.

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

Why do they have hope? Do try to defend it to me.

They read the scripts. They know they're not going to die and that the villains will lose.

Edited February 26, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

Quote

Adam Horowitz  ‏@AdamHorowitzLA

@DODlECLARK if you want the show back, great! So do we! If/when we can announce something, I'm confident we will.  But no one is hiding stuff

I understand fans' frustrations, but pestering Adam is annoying.

Having said that, if Adam is not able to comment about the future of the show, he should just not reply at all.  

He's "confident" that he will announcement something when he can?  But he isn't sure he will?  

Quote

Adam Horowitz  ‏@AdamHorowitzLA  2h2 hours ago

@DODlECLARK no one "knows" anything. We haven't heard an announcement from the network. There is lotsa "speculation" -- but that's all it is

For example, this tweet really should not have been made.  Of course Adam "knows" more about the qualifying conditions for renewal and his contingency plans than is being reported.  So why put out a message that he knows no more than anyone else?

Edited February 26, 2017 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

Adam attempts to answer ambiguously, as a politician does, but he fails miserably. I also doubt he doesn't "know" anything.

Edited February 26, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Shanna Marie]

Still thinking about that whole surprise/spoilers thing ...

There are times when surprise isn't good, or when not having surprise isn't bad. There's a certain satisfaction to figuring something out for yourself. Not when it's ridiculously obvious, like being able to tell who the killer is from the guest cast list at the start of a CBS procedural, but when you've put together the clues the writers have set out. There was much rejoicing when a popular fan theory was confirmed on Game of Thrones. There might have been a few people who were bummed about not being surprised by that (the ones who didn't like the theory), but it seems like most people were thrilled. Ditto with a revelation near the end of the season of Westworld.  There are times when something pretty much needs to happen and that not happening is an unpleasant surprise. Like Emma talking so much at the start of season 4 about being afraid of a relationship because everyone she'd loved had died, and then Hook being in mortal danger. We're anticipating seeing her reacting to this. We're practically seeing the scene in our heads because it's so obvious and necessary, and it was incredibly unsatisfying when we didn't get it. When Chekhov's Gun doesn't get fired, it leaves an unsettled, unsatisfied sense. Then there's the surprise vs. suspense issue, where you can get different effects. You can have the girl walking through a lovely forest, birds singing, happy, and then out of nowhere the big bad wolf pounces on her. There's a time and a place for that (like the opening sequence of Grimm). But there's also a place for the audience seeing the big bad wolf stalking the girl. There's still going to be some shock value when he pounces, but us knowing the wolf is there ramps up the tension.

What's funny is that these writers love surprise so much that they resort to Alien Vampire Bunnies rather than following story logic, and yet they don't use it when it would have been the better decision. Like the revelation of Zelena. They revealed her to the audience too soon when she might have worked better as a surprise, since us knowing and the characters not knowing only made them look dumb. They blew the surprise when we saw her in full cackle early in the arc, then knew exactly who she was in Storybrooke, but it might have made for a better story if we'd only seen her from a distance in the Enchanted Forest, just a green figure on a broom, and then there had been more than one new people in Storybrooke, so we, along with the characters, didn't know who she was, and it came as a shock when Neal died so Rumple could tell them. With her cackling all over the place and being just about the only new person in town, it just made that arc frustrating to watch. There was the big, dramatic moment of Neal's death and Rumple then telling them, while the audience is thinking, "You idiots! You couldn't have figured that out already?"

[Camera One]

That was another case where they loved writing for an over-the-top villain so much they needed to bring her out early, and then promptly overused her so much that I was personally bored of her 1/3 into 3B.  It's either too much or too little with these guys.  They never get it "just right".  And yeah, the Goldilocks cameo was really underwhelming too.

[KingOfHearts]

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

 And yeah, the Goldilocks cameo was really underwhelming too.

Are you talking about the Good Morning Storybrooke shorts?

In 3B, Zelena should have been more of an added bonus than the core conflict. (At least until the climax.) The focus should have been on the Missing Year, both for the EF folks and Emma/Henry. We could have gotten oodles of delicious flashbacks of that, but instead we got 2.5 centrics for Zelena. I don't hate Zelena, I love her, but there's a distinct difference between her 3B self and her 4B+ self. Her introduction was akin to your stereotypical Big Bad. She wasn't layered. We didn't need to spend so much time on her before she was a full character. 

Edited February 27, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

16 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

Are you talking about the Good Morning Storybrooke shorts?

Moreso The Evil Queen and Zelena's spa day.

[janett snakehole]

I was just reading the Supergirl boards on the newest episode and came across this post. Thought it was interesting. Who knows if it's true, but since it mentions Adam and his supposed interest in personally discussing the show with someone over the phone I thought it was worth posting. 

Adam mention is at the bottom. 

Edited February 27, 2017 by janett snakehole
added where adam mention is

[Shanna Marie]

He's got to be really desperate for approval if he wants to talk to people personally about his vision for the show. I wonder what about the direction season 2 took that needed to be discussed -- the turn to Woegina? Though the "praise and awards" rhetoric is standard SwanQueen talk, so I'm guessing there was concern about a new character being introduced as a possible love interest for Emma, that the SQ gang would think of as a change in direction. Still, I can't imagine a writer being that desperate to defend his choices.

I think a big problem on this show is that trying to please everyone and still write what they want and also please the network, and you get that Aesop fable about trying to please all of the people all of the time. They keep trying to appease all the various factions of Internet fans, which doesn't work when their desires are mutually exclusive. You can't have both SwanQueen and CaptainSwan, and they're kind of trying to do both by having Emma and Hook as a couple, but no real scenes together, and meanwhile Emma and Regina are hanging out together but they're never going to get together as a couple. Then nobody's happy, and the writers are getting berated on Twitter and getting even more thin-skinned and defensive, while the show craters.

[Camera One]

I finally watched "The Force Awakens".  Probably should have seen it in a theatre instead of at home while doing paperwork.  Spoilers below, though I'm probably the only person who hasn't watched it yet.

I thought it was a relatively enjoyable diversion.  The new characters were mostly likeable, and the plot familiar.  The old characters were well used, with the exception of MacGuffin, uh, I mean Luke.  Though 10 minutes into the movie, I was already thinking about "Once"... what is with every story's fascination with village massacres promptly followed by zero concern by the filmmakers of anyone who died?  Our entertainment today really deems civilian deaths meaningless.  

I was disappointed that they killed off Han Solo.  I kind of lost respect for J.J. Abrams when I read this quote about his justification:

Quote

JJ Abrams: Long before we had this title, the idea of The Force Awakens was that this would become the evolution of not just a hero, but a villain. Star Wars had the greatest villain in cinema history. So, how you bring a new villain into that world is a very tricky thing. We knew we needed to do something fucking bold. The only reason why Kylo Ren has any hope of being a worthy successor is because we lose one of the most beloved characters.

Oh how original... the evolution of a villain.  Kylo Ren was a pathetic loser and a totally lame villain, and for that, we lost the chance to see Harrison Ford again?  He was arguably one of the top 3 most enjoyable parts of this movie.  I just hate writer excuses for why they kill off "beloved characters".  

Edited February 27, 2017 by Camera One

[andromeda331]

3 hours ago, Camera One said:

yI finally watched "The Force Awakens".  Probably should have seen it in a theatre instead of at home while doing paperwork.  Spoilers below, though I'm probably the only person who hasn't watched it yet.

I thought it was a relatively enjoyable diversion.  The new characters were mostly likeable, and the plot familiar.  The old characters were well used, with the exception of MacGuffin, uh, I mean Luke.  Though 10 minutes into the movie, I was already thinking about "Once"... what is with every story's fascination with village massacres promptly followed by zero concern by the filmmakers of anyone who died?  Our entertainment today really deems civilian deaths meaningless.  

I was disappointed that they killed off Han Solo.  I kind of lost respect for J.J. Abrams when I read this quote about his justification:

Oh how original... the evolution of a villain.  Kylo Ren was a pathetic loser and a totally lame villain, and for that, we lost the chance to see Harrison Ford again?  He was arguably one of the top 3 most enjoyable parts of this movie.  I just hate writer excuses for why they kill off "beloved characters".  

So do I. And I'm really tired of the evolution of a villain. I'm on over load from the evolutions of a villain. Or why villains do bad things. It seems like everyone has a sad, or bad backstory to explain why they went off and murdered a lot of people or is a jerk to everyone.  Who cares about the massacre villages, or any other victims. Let's see how someone became a villain and do bad things. Don't worry about Snow White who got decades of hell thrown at her. Ignore how she managed to stay perky and hope while living on the run as a bandit after her father was murdered and her stepmother stole her kingdom and repeatedly tried to kill her. Or who fought back and found people to help her fight back and defeat the person to who terrorized her all these years and murdered so many people. I mean is there a point when the villain ever goes too far? Regina slaughtered entire villages, sent children who knows how many children into the Blind Witch's house for the apple, separated the only two that survived from their father,  cursed an entire town, raped a man for decades, the list goes on and on. As it does for Rumple. Obviously never to A&E since Cora ended up in Heaven.

Edited February 27, 2017 by andromeda331

[Camera One]

I forgot this line from "The Force Awakens", about Kylo Ren: "There's still light in him... I know it."  

A&E watching and hearing that line must have seemed like reinforcement for their way of storytelling.

[Rumsy4]

Kylo Ren was such a weak villain. It was a combination of poor writing and poor acting, IMO. Star Wars has a history of villain-apologizing though. Padme was claiming there was still good in Anakin even after being nearly choked to death by him while pregnant. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

3 hours ago, Rumsy4 said:

Padme was claiming there was still good in Anakin even after being nearly choked to death by him while pregnant. 

That's probably where A&E got the inspiration for Rumbelle.

3 hours ago, Rumsy4 said:

Star Wars has a history of villain-apologizing though.

It's interesting, because I don't recall the original three movies (IV-VI) being this way with Darth Vader.

[sharky]

To be fair to the Force Awakens, I also believe that Harrison Ford may have lobbied a bit to have Han killed. It's similar to what I suspect Robert may be doing with Rumple so we'll have to see how the writers handle that.

As for fandom, having Adam call fans seems weird. I've never heard of that happening and I think I would've by now. After six seasons of over analysis and no one knew he randomly called fans. Maybe former recapped Cindy mentioned she has sent emails back and forth or something, but a random fan talking to him sounds odd. 

[Souris]

1 hour ago, sharky said:

To be fair to the Force Awakens, I also believe that Harrison Ford may have lobbied a bit to have Han killed. It's similar to what I suspect Robert may be doing with Rumple so we'll have to see how the writers handle that.

As for fandom, having Adam call fans seems weird. I've never heard of that happening and I think I would've by now. After six seasons of over analysis and no one knew he randomly called fans. Maybe former recapped Cindy mentioned she has sent emails back and forth or something, but a random fan talking to him sounds odd. 

Harrison wanted Han Solo killed off in Empire, so I don't find it a bit hard to believe that killing off Han could've been a condition of his participation on TFA.

I don't know about phone calls, but Adam has DM'd multiple fans on Twitter. Both are pretty unprofessional IMO.