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

[Shanna Marie]

The lack of goals was something I brought up on the All Seasons thread. The protagonists seldom have any proactive goal. They're strictly in reactive mode, so their only goal is "stop the bad guy." Even in reactive mode, they don't really have a plan for stopping the bad guy that gives them a specific goal. All they do is react to each thing the bad guy does instead of having their own plan they're working toward. It doesn't help matters that they don't seem to have any life goals aside from stopping the bad guys. "Live a normal life" isn't exactly a goal that can drive a narrative. It might have helped if they hadn't just decided that Storybrooke was home, so they could have had the goal to find a way back home. Mostly, it seems like the regular characters just sit around in Storybrooke, waiting for the next bad guy to pop up, and then they try to stop that bad guy. There's nothing they want for themselves.

 

Writing 101: Your heroes should have a goal.

[Writing Wrongs]

I wonder how this season will end? Who will be the villain for next season? They are running through them pretty fast.

[YaddaYadda]

They have their built-in villain with Rumple and I don't really see that ending at the end of this season.  That being said, I wish they'd move away from the whole villain thing next season and go back to what season 1 was. 

[Souris]

Jane Espenson tweeted that she's working on the 3rd-to-last ep of the season.

[KingOfHearts]

 

"Live a normal life" isn't exactly a goal that can drive a narrative. It might have helped if they hadn't just decided that Storybrooke was home, so they could have had the goal to find a way back home.

I don't understand why the writers decided to let all the characters think of Storybrooke as "home". Surely there are people in SB who had much better lives in EF than they do in Maine. There are royal families who have traded their kingdoms in for picket fence housing, and I can't imagine all of them being okay with that. Snowing aren't the only monarchs.  Surely people would miss their home land. The writers, I tell you... if staying in SB is the final resolution of the series I'm going to cry.

[KAOS Agent]

 

I think a lot the main characters have become played out. I agree with you on Snow. Regina's conflicts are largely resolved. Emma met her main goals of breaking the Curse and finding "home" with her true family. Rumpel met the main goal of reuniting with Bae.

 

I think that there is a way to shift goals, but the writers trapped themselves by creating goals that are very finite and unmovable. Once they met them, there's no way to extend things. With Rumpel, I have no idea where his sudden need for world domination came from, but his actions put him at odds with others and requires a change other than simply using magical object to reunite with Belle. They found a way to extend his story. There's only so much goal movement they can make though. One more season and they'll have played him out too. With Snow & Regina, they just don't have the option to move the goals. They attempted to with the ridiculous find the author storyline, but it's not particularly interesting because as you said, what happens when she finds him? He writes her her happy ending and then what?

 

Emma is pretty much the only character who I can see never being played out. And that's only because Emma's story has always been less about Emma and more about her role as a catalyst for change. Sometimes the changes she effected did positive things for her personal goals, but mostly whatever Emma said/did just pushed the story forward. The writers could have a perfectly well adjusted Emma with a husband, two kids and a dog and still make her a part of the story simply by continuing to use her to influence other characters. She'd be pretty boring, but she'd still be performing the role she has always been written to have. As it is, Emma is consistently written running around helping people, but ultimately being pointless when it comes to the big finish. Emma's main goal has always been to bring back everyone's happy endings. That's a goal that can never be met, so her role in the show can continue into infinity.

[KingOfHearts]

 

Emma is pretty much the only character who I can see never being played out.

Emma, though a lot of her walls have been knocked down, it still adjusting to being part of a family and having people care for her. There's always another area in her past that can be worked on. She's the only character that's realistic and organic. By definition she clashes with a lot of what happens on the show, so there's a whole bunch of stories to harvest there.

[Souris]

I think some of these posts should be in other topics. I don't want this topic to get closed!

[Shanna Marie]

As much as we gripe about the PLOT!PLOT!PLOT! writing in this show, the plotting also kind of sucks. I think it's more idea-driven writing. It's all about the "wouldn't it be cool if ..." but then without any development. So, wouldn't it be cool if we could do Frozen? So then Elsa's in town, but she doesn't really do much because the development didn't go beyond the "wouldn't it be cool" part. And wouldn't it be cool if Belle kicked Rumple out of town so he lost his powers, so they just handwave to get to that point instead of doing any kind of logical plotting.

 

And that's made me think that although it's usually the death knell of a show when the original creators leave and someone else takes over the day-to-day operations, it might be the best thing to happen to this show if Adam and Eddy got some kind of development deal and moved on to something else, maintaining a consulting role but with someone else taking over as showrunner. They do have good big-picture ideas, so let them be a part of the pre-season brainstorming session, but then keep them out of the way of the day-to-day writing and let someone else manage the development of these ideas so that there is actual plotting and the characters are allowed to act like people instead of like pawns to the next big idea.

[coops]

Interestingly, I think the same of Regina. I know every detail of every tear Regina has ever shed over her sad, sad life and now she's gotten everything. Regina's story could have been expanded had she too not achieved all of her goals. Unfortunately, by the end of Season 3, the writers had given her True Love's Kiss with her son, a soul mate who loves her instantly and doesn't care that she murdered his wife, access to powerful white magic and the general acceptance of the citizens she spent years terrorizing. Sure, her boyfriend is currently separated from her, but it's only a physical separation. It doesn't require her character to undergo a change in any manner. There is no emotional journey for her to take. Find a way to get Robin back and she's all good. There's no drama there. And since the writers consider Regina and the Evil Queen as completely separate people, further backstory about the Evil Queen is pointless as well. The writing can't have it where all the "bad things" that happened to the Evil Queen are relevant to Regina and all of the horror and suffering she inflicted on others have nothing to do with her. To make things worse with Regina's story, much of what she achieved in 3B was unearned, so any further wants/needs she may have can be really off-putting.

With two thirds of the main stars of the show having essentially achieved their goals, the writers are stuck with no real story to tell, but fans still clamoring for more Snow and MORE REGINA!!!!! and those fans getting angry when they write the stories of other characters whose every move has not already been documented on this show. Belle, Hook, Rumpel, David, Emma and I guess Will too all have stories that we have not seen and should be infinitely more interesting than life ruiner Snow and the misunderstood actions of the Evil Queen.

I totally agree. A writer is supposed to give a reader/viewer what they NEED not what they WANT. As a viewer in season 1 I did want to see if snow and regina could learn to put their differences aside and i wanted to see if, when the curse broke, regina and henry could form a mother/son relationship. But now watching the show it really jars how all the charmings act as if regina is some kind of delicate teenager who must be protected and cared for and never accused or betrayed in any way at all costs. It sometimes makes me wonder if there has been another curse which has taken the characters memories because they certainly dont act like they remember any of the terrible things regina did in th EF. The writers might want all their characters to be one big happy family and for everyone to love regina as they clearly do but reginas story should be about her earning that love and trust. Thats not to say she couldnt have moments of tenderness or love with henry or snow, those moments would be a lot more powerful if they were rare... im fairly certain that most people roll their eyes whenever snow or emma run around after regina in each episode.

[Amerilla]

I think it's more idea-driven writing.

 

That feels accurate. It fits the vibe I get off A&E that they're basically over-caffeinated dude-bros: they're happiest when they're tumbling along, riffing and brainstorming, but get bored and antsy when it comes to trying to translate their ideas into a cohesive plan.

 

It's very much like X-Files. Chris Carter was a great Idea Guy, but the ideas never really formed into a cohesive mythology. He made great writers - including Vince Gilligan - churn out a hell of a lot of confusing garbage betwixt the stand-alone gems. They were on the air for nine seasons, and even with 200 episodes behind him, he clearly pulled the finale out of his ass. Like most things pulled out of one's ass, it was deeply unsatisfying.

 

I don't know that new showrunners would really help at this point. They did that with 'Revolution,' and while I feel it was a much stronger story, they couldn't win back their audience. 'Sleepy Hollow,' the hottest thing out there last year, is struggling in its sophomore year to the point where it may not be around for a junior year. It's so bad that they pulled the showrunner out mid-season and are clearly trying to get back on track just enough to win another shot (which I hope they do).

 

At a certain point, so much damage has been done to the mythology it can't be repaired without a complete reboot, and there isn't a lot of point in rebooting a series this late in the game. I'm kind of rooting for a semi-dignified death at the end of S5.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Amerilla

[Curio]

I'm definitely in the "get different showrunners" camp. (I'm also kind of in the "get better writers" camp.) I agree that Adam & Eddy are good at big ideas and can stick around as producers, but there's clearly some kind of miscommunication or lack of leadership going on in the writers room. Scripts have gotten increasingly repetitive, which I blame on the writers for not looking over each others' scripts more thoroughly. There's no reason why Rumple had to say exposition about "the stars and alignments and the hat and the cleaving" over multiple episodes. There was also that flub in the midseason finale where Hook apparently didn't hear Belle's revelation and had to get that information from Emma, even though he was clearly listening in the police station. Things like that make you scratch your head and wonder how much scrutiny is going into looking over these scripts as a cohesive whole.
 

At a certain point, so much damage has been done to the mythology it can't be repaired without a complete reboot, and there isn't a lot of point in rebooting a series this late in the game.

 
I think Once is one of the few shows on TV that could both handle and benefit from a reboot, even though it's going into its fifth season. They've already established the half-season story arc concept where themes, plots, and locations can drastically change year from year, so ditch Storybooke, go on some fun adventures through Camelot, Agrabah, or wherever, and turn the series on its head. The ratings couldn't get any worse from it. I think Adam & Eddy have tunnel vision when it comes to their final product and can't objectively look at their work and figure out why it's not working (e.g., "but we can't do 40 minutes of kissing"), so throw in someone who does understand character motivation and fantasy rules and clean this series up, please.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Curio

[Shanna Marie]

I could think of a dozen ways to reboot the series without breaking a sweat. Really, all it would take is to let Regina go evil again, treat her like a villain instead of a victim and let everyone act toward her like she's a villain, and then do a proper redemption arc that happens over the time and requires actual remorse, self-awareness and struggle to regain trust. That would solve at least 70 percent of the issues with the show, as long as the writing for everything else improves (logical plotting, characters getting to have normal emotional reactions, less redundancy). 

[KingOfHearts]

 

I think Once is one of the few shows on TV that could both handle and benefit from a reboot, even though it's going into its fifth season. They've already established the half-season story arc concept where themes, plots, and locations can drastically change year from year, so ditch Storybooke, go on some fun adventures through Camelot, Abrabah, or wherever, and turn the series on its head.

Totally agree.

 

Storybrooke, as it stands, is fleshed out and boring. Now there could be more to explore, what with secondary characters and town affairs, but A&E have shown they have absolutely not interest in going there. If they want to stick with magic and high profile franchises, then going to another world would be more appropriate. If Storybrooke was magic-less and the villains had to be smart about it, then it would more interesting. However, there's little to no difference between the flashbacks and present day right now. I'm not digging the "random Big Bad comes to Storybrooke" formula the writers have going at all.

 

In this stage of the game, Lost began its big reboots. The Oceanic Six and the time travel were both game changers. This would be a great time for Once to do a 180 and reset the story. The Missing Year was supposed to do that... sigh.

Edited February 18, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[Souris]

I don't think Once could successfully reboot itself, because it's still these showrunners and writers. They would have to get new showrunners to do it well. A&E have shown they can't handle it well.

[Shanna Marie]

I don't think Once could successfully reboot itself, because it's still these showrunners and writers. They would have to get new showrunners to do it well. A&E have shown they can't handle it well.

I think the reboot discussion was a follow-on to the discussion about how it would help the show if A&E moved to create a new show elsewhere and retained only a big-picture consulting role, with someone else taking over showrunning. Even really good writers who understand character and plot probably couldn't work with the current situation because it makes no sense and would make a good writer's head explode (I know I probably couldn't bring myself to write about Regina's quest for the Author to make him give her a happy ending), so fixing the show with new showrunners would require a reboot of some sort. I think it would probably take making Regina evil again so she could be truly redeemed and so her relationships with the others could be reset and rebuilt from the ground up so that they made more sense and possibly a new curse or another round of curse reversals so they could have a reason to play with any our world vs. the storybook people scenarios and do some worldbuilding retrofitting.

[Camera One]

Well, we (or at least I) always have the pipe dream that the next half-season will have some of the writing problems solved.  But unfortunately, Souris is right.  A&E and the writing staff don't see any problem with what they are writing, so it's not going to change.  I think the "raw materials" of this show (the actors, the characters, the premise) are still potent even in its fourth season.  Some characters may need way more repairs than others, but I think it could still be done IF more ambitious and competent planners and writers who love these characters seized the reins.  Unfortunately, that is as much a pipe-dream, and a huge risk.  Usually, with changes in headwriters, it's one of the existing writers who step up and take control, and they all seem to be pretty much on the same page and have much of the same biases.  If it's someone entirely new, it's a risk the new writer might not love the characters.

 

I would personally find it exhausting to see Regina going evil *again*.  I'm tired of this see-saw, and it has gone up and down way too many times.  I think new writers could find other ways to "start over" with Regina's redemption and do a better job of it, without going that tread-upon-a-dozen times route.  I agree that the worldbuilding retrofitting would be more challenging, especially laying down and enforcing some clear rules of magic.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

I would personally find it exhausting to see Regina going evil *again*.  I'm tired of this see-saw, and it has gone up and down way too many times.

The problem is that the see-saw has never really gone one way or the other. She hasn't really been redeemed because they've just handwaved past all her issues, so I can't consider her truly good and take that seriously. And because she's been moved into the "heroes" column, she hasn't actually gone truly evil since mid-season 2. She just gets pissy occasionally. Her only actual bout of "evil again" that lasted longer than a scene or two was in season two when all her good intentions collapsed once Cora came to town. Since then she's been fairly steady on the side of good with the occasional bitchy moment (aside from stuff like still holding Sidney prisoner and never having apologized). I don't think there's really a way to make a true redemption happen at this point without some sort of reset. She's been considered a hero and has considered herself a hero for too long for it to make any sense for her to suddenly gain some self-awareness, realize that she was totally wrong, and apologize or make amends. About the only way for this to happen is for her to flip out about something (easy to imagine because it doesn't take much for her to backslide), maybe have some awful consequences for her actions, then hit bottom and finally have her Come to Jesus moment in which she realizes how badly she's screwed up, and not just this time, but going all the way back to her initial reaction to Daniel's death. That's also the only way I can see to get past the Woegina. Even if a good writer who didn't have the Regina bias took over, the character has been established as self-pitying and a perpetual victim, with everyone else buying into the tears. It wouldn't make sense for Regina to just suddenly get over herself, quit crying about every little slight, and take some personal responsibility for her own actions, and the other characters would look like jerks if they suddenly lost all sympathy for Regina for no reason. The only way I can think of would be for her to hit bottom and start over again, this time in a way that seems more genuine. Or let her stay evil. I'd be okay with that. Anything but a victim.

[FabulousTater]

No one will be surprised, but when it comes to a reboot I would just kill Regina off. We've had so much of her "will she won't she go evil" again and again and again that enough is enough. I say, if you want a real reboot, kill her and be done with it. Her and her story are a dead horse that have been beaten to death a thousand times over and stink like a school of rotting dead fish at high tide. It's the limb with gangrene that needs to be amputated.

 

I would rather write in a vengeful Cora rising from the dead or any other completely, no holds barred, real evil villain who is evil and owns it ( I feel like Cora was the last truly threatening villain this show ever had. I liked the Snow Queen but the Shattered Sight spell was a total joke. I mean, what was that? Death by Three Stooges??? Pffft. That was so stupid. Snow Queen herself was cool (no pun intended) but a total non-villain). I would also have Cora (or Evil Villian X) working from the shadows, sewing real mistrust in the the ranks -- real mistrust that drives some of them apart into opposing camps and it all actually has consequences and not just lip service that's solved with an idiotic throwaway line and a hug -- and also have Cora/Evil Villain X picking off some of the "good guys" (as in killing some dead-dead) just for grins -- and oh, they can't die from stupidity. A knife coming from the shadows is a better real mortal threat than a character who dies because they are literally too stupid too live (though, if the character is too stupid too live, their death by their own hand/stupidity can always be great comic relief). All of this would be happening for some time before Cora/Evil Villain X actually revealed themselves. I would also have a real "final" battle with them. A real throw down not some kubaya moment or a "I'm a hero and heroes don't kill" platitude coming from Team Good. Any real evil villain would laugh in the face of that. Hell, have Cora/Evil Villain X win the battle and so the surviving good guys have to scatter and run from Storybrooke for their lives. Then the follow up season is about good guys regaining each others trust and reforming their ranks in a secret underground rebellion to overthrow and defeat Cora/Evil Villain X.

 

Any writing has to also add real stakes back into the stories and lasting consequences, which is something the current show runners and writers are apparently deathly allergic to. None of the villains we've had since Cora have been a real threat. We all know they'll be dead or gone by the end of the mid-season and anyone who died in present day killed themselves. (All except poor Graham RIP. Once again, Regina is still getting away with literal murder.) A character killing them self by their own stupidity isn't a real stake it's just real dumb.

 

And no more writing redemptions for the villain, FFS! If you're going to write a reboot, the villain is going to be evil, through and through. Enough writing poor sad woobie villain bullcrap. Just write them evil and own it. I don't want some lovelorn sad sack like what "Sleepy Hollow" did to The Headless Horseman (what a waste), or another screeching, whiny, "why can't I have my happy ending" (boo-freakin-hoo!) hag like Regina. No more stupid redemption stories and no more whiny villains! No. More.

Edited February 19, 2015 by FabulousTater

[Shanna Marie]

The problem with Regina is that they've written themselves into a corner with her. If she were killed now, unless she'd gone evil again and was killed by her own stupidity she'd just become a sainted martyr, and that's not going to help the show. So even if new writers came in and realized what a drag on the storytelling Regina was, they're stuck with what's been established, and that's the fact that Regina is a victim who's considered redeemed and a hero in spite of not having actually admitted to realizing that she was totally wrong and whose victims are considered as bad as she is and who grovel for her acceptance.

 

The funny thing is, they gave themselves a chance to reboot Regina with the Zelena story, time travel, and Marian. Seeing Zelena could have been a wake-up call for Regina, a sense of "oh, that's what I was like. Yuck." Then Emma returning from the past could have taken the "I just watched you execute my mother, so I don't think I can deal with you for a while" attitude. And then Marian's return and the story of what happened to her could have really thrown things into focus. Robin could have been horrified that he was making out with his wife's would-be murderer. Regina could have had her Come To Jesus moment when she looked into the past and saw herself with Marian, and that could have combined with what she saw in Zelena to make her realize that she really had been a monster, that there was no way to justify her past actions. Then some self-awareness could have crept in as she realized that what she was feeling was what she'd put others through -- Snow and David with the curse, Emma with killing Graham -- and she could have started rebuilding from there with some real repentance.

 

But instead, they made her decide that it was all a sign that there was something wrong with the universe that required everything to be rewritten to give her what she deserved, and they had Robin and Emma apparently like her even more after discovering the things she'd done. That's why I feel like Regina would have to be taken truly evil again for a reboot to work. If the Marian thing didn't cause her to hit bottom and realize she had a problem and didn't affect the way others saw her, it would be hard to find something else that would work. Emma's already endorsed the Author plan, so we've got a problem there even if the Author gives Regina the "you make your own happy ending, dumbass, and yeah, you really were a villain, deal with it" speech. At this point, I think she'd have to be truly evil (and not just bitchy and pissy) again to either kill her or truly redeem her without dragging the show down further. Since she's never really shown remorse or apologized, it's not like she'd have that far to go to be evil. It wouldn't be a true reversal. Right now, she seems to be mostly acting good because she thinks that's the best way to get what she wants (she knows Henry would reject her if she hurt his family). It doesn't seem like it would take much to change her direction.

[YaddaYadda]

Their permaboner for Regina is the biggest disservice they have done the character.  Sweeping everything she has done under the rug is the worst thing they could have done to her.  

[FurryFury]

And no more writing redemptions for the villain, FFS! If you're going to write a reboot, the villain is going to be evil, through and through. Enough writing poor sad woobie villain bullcrap. Just write them evil and own it. I don't want some lovelorn sad sack like what "Sleepy Hollow" did to The Headless Horseman (what a waste), or another screeching, whiny, "why can't I have my happy ending" (boo-freakin-hoo!) hag like Regina. No more stupid redemption stories and no more whiny villains! No. More.

 

Well, I disagree. Tropes are not bad. The fact that Regina's redemption arc sucks balls doesn't mean this idea can't be done well - or shouldn't be attempted. Hell, there were moments even Regina was doing actually OK (like 3A until "Save Henry" - this was my favorite Regina, I think). Were Regina not on the show at all, the problems with the writing would still be there - they just would be different. Because Regina's not the problem, she's the symptom. The problem is bad writing and lack of self-awareness.

[Serena]

Exactly. Regina's redemption sucks because the writers are too blinded by their love for her, but also, because the ways they love her is just insane. They both love that she's sassy/snarky, that she's deliciously evil and that she's a misunderstood victim who's really good under all. They love all three of those aspects, but a character can't be all those three things at the same time! She can be snarky and evil, but can't be really good underneath. She can be good and snarky, but you can't also have her be evil (both in the past and in the present with Sidney)! And worst of all, she can't be an hypocrite who never gets called out by the narrative. 

 

They can and do write good redeemed villains if they want. Snow Queen, Hook, etc. Those arcs have their flaws, but they fundamentally work.

[Dani-Ellie]

They both love that she's sassy/snarky, that she's deliciously evil and that she's a misunderstood victim who's really good under all. They love all three of those aspects, but a character can't be all those three things at the same time!

This. They want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want her to be the most evil evil who'd ever eviled because it's fun and you can love to hate her, but they also want her to tug on everyone's sympathy nerves, and it's like, no. You cannot have a character who's crossed the moral event horizon dozens of times over and then play the victim card. Those are not the same character, and it doesn't work without making the writing crap.

 

They're treating the Evil Queen and Regina as two separate characters, but within the construct of their own story, she's not two separate characters. Mayor Regina was always the Evil Queen. Mayor Regina is not a cursed persona because Regina never lost her memories. I'm not saying that Regina couldn't have grown past the Evil Queen, but in order for her to do so, she needs to face her past actions. She needs to stare her darkness in the face and be properly horrified by it. I need to see that she wants to change, not to get something out of it but because being evil is wrong.

 

They've swung her too far and too many times in the evil direction because it's "fun" to make any kind of reconciliation among the core cast at all realistic. Because I'm sorry, but Regina spent half a season of this show trying to kill Henry's entire family so she can have him all to herself. That's some horrifying shit and the fact that it's all brushed under the rug because she's Regina is crap, in terms of story development. And really, I could deal with tentative alliances, like in Neverland, where they all work together because they have to and do not at all enjoy it or fully trust each other. But this happy let's all be friends and family nonsense, without any kind of work done by Regina to make any kind of amends to these people (not even a token apology!!), is utter crap.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Dani-Ellie

[Amerilla]

Regina is so intrinsically uninteresting to me that I can't work up the energy to bitch about her. I do thank her (and Hook) for introducing me to my True Love: Fast-Forward. We've been going hot and heavy with each other since early S2.

 

Gold, on the other hand - I'm thinking that's where the show and are going to part ways for good.

 

It's the Breaking Bad effect. Rumpel is really just a magicked up version of Walter White. TVTrope defines the basic model as "Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds," but consciously or unconsciously, A&E did more than just pull from the Big Book of Tropes. Yes, the settings and the style of storytelling are very different, but there are more than a few passing similarities.

 

Walter and Rumpel are both middle-aged men scraping out a living in low-prestige jobs. They both once came close to achieving a dream of wealth or social status - Walt as a chemist, Rumpel as a soldier - only to fail at the key moment. Both have spent a lifetime being bullied and dominated by men bigger and louder than themselves.Then something black and foreign enters their body (cancer/the Dark One), and allows them to tap this ginormous reservoir of rage and ambition that's been in there, apparently, all along. Their original, arguably noble goal is to provide/defend their families, with most of the focus on their plucky teenaged sons.That shifts as time goes on, to a drive to use alchemical means - chemistry, magic - to attain wealth and power. Hidden behind personas - Heisenberg, Rumpelstiltskin - they become legendary and feared. Of course, they lose their families...but like the megalomaniacs they've become, they always believe they can get it all back, somehow.

 

Narratively, this is hard to sustain over a long period of time. No matter how elegantly written, no matter how intricately plotted, by S4 in Breaking Bad, it was the same thing over and over and over: Walt pissing on Jesse, Walt pissing on Skyler, Walt pulling his jujubes out of the fire at the last second, Walt vanquishing the marginally more heinous Big Bad standing in his way.  There wasn't even any shock value in it after a certain point. There was just this unpleasant person being an asshole - and don't we run into enough of those in real life?

 

Worse, it was clear in S5 that they were going to push Walt to full-on nihilism and still have him die a "noble" death in the end. "Felina" might as well have been titled "Walt Wins, Bitches!"

 

A&E have the additional problem of not being elegant writers or intricate plotters. So they have Rumpel doing the same boring, pointlessly complicated things over and over to less and less effect. Plus, Robert isn't really doing anything interesting with the material at this point. And I think it's going to be that way right up until the last moments of the S5 finale, when his contract, along with his character, expires.

 

I'm not necessarily arguing that either Walter White or Rumpelstiltskin should have been/be redeemed. I know plenty of people prefer unredeemed "villains." But I think there are probably a lot of people like me, who don't really enjoy stories where there is no light at the end of the tunnel, no chance to salvage the good person from the ashes of the bad. 

Edited February 19, 2015 by Amerilla

[FabulousTater]

Well, I disagree. Tropes are not bad. The fact that Regina's redemption arc sucks balls doesn't mean this idea can't be done well - or shouldn't be attempted.

I think you’re kinda missing my point? I never said tropes are bad. My original post said nothing of tropes being bad — I never even used the word “trope”. My point is that for this imaginary reboot that we’re talking about here — a reboot wherein there are a new set of writers and new show runners, and therefore the old writing problems leave with them— the best course of action IMO is to make a clean break of all the crap written by the previous writing group, and to do so involves dropping characters that weigh down the show.

 

Like it or not, Regina’s character has been hashed and rehashed, hashed and rehashed, again and again, bounced between good-evil-good-evil-good-evil-good-evil-good-evil so many damn times that the show has utterly fatigued the audience (IMO). I think that the three years spent waffling this character has made her intolerable (to everyone but her sycophants, but that’s why they are sycophants and writers shouldn’t be catering to sycophants).

 

Yes, if you wanted to, you could undertake a reboot that included a redemption arc for Regina, but the question I think that should be asked is “should you?” And I think the answer to that is “No”. Even if you could do it well with new show runners and a new writing team, no matter what you write, it’s still beating a maggoty dead horse for the what is now the billionth time. Beating a dead horse isn’t a reboot it’s just saying “We’re gonna do the same thing, but better”. And to that I say, “No thanks." Lookit, we’ve been down this road before…several times. It’s been done, and even though it wasn’t done well, it’s too damn late.” IMO you can’t put the genie back in the bottle and have the audience pretend the show hasn’t done this story before (several times) no matter how much you say “No, see, we're gonna do it right this time!” So what, who cares? It’s still revisiting the same topic for the billionth time — a topic that was already feeling stale and tiresome as of 2 years ago. I think the smart move is to call it a loss and move the eff on. Stop wasting creative energy on this dead horse, drop Regina down a damn well (literally if need be), and put the writing efforts on other long neglected characters and relationships.

 

I think the show has passed the point where writing Regina an authentic redemption even matters — I don’t think enough people give two shits anymore. Outside of the Evil Regals who would probably (and literally) lay down their own lives to save Regina, most people are fatigued by the character. There’s a lot of “OMG, just be good or bad, but FFS, shut the hell up and get off my screen!”  Redemptions need to be organic and the show missed it’s chance. I wouldn't waste the opportunity of a reboot trying to fix a character that stinks more than refried, year old takeout. ‘Cause no matter how many times you reheat those rotten moldy leftovers, they are still rotten moldy leftovers. The time to have done a proper redemption was somewhere in s2 and s3, but the writers blew it. If you want a real reboot and to reinvigorate the show, call the character a loss, kill her, and move on.

 

I don't care if you want to make Regina full evil again <insert_eye_roll> before you finally kill her off, the point is that if you're gonna do a reboot, I think you should take advantage of it and get rid of her character. And, as an added bonus, the other characters' problems ("The Human Prop" syndrome for one) disappear with her. It's win-win.

 

(TBH, i think the idea of redeeming Regina is preposterous. To be clear I’m not against redemption arcs, so don't walkaway saying "Oh, you're against tropes and redemptions" because I'm not. But I think there’s a time and place for redemption stories, and also some characters that writers shouldn’t try to redeem. Regina IMO is one of those characters that her time for true redemption has come and gone. For me at this point, knowing what we know of Regina's past atrocities, redeeming Regina is like redeeming Sauron from LoTR. It's a non-starter.

 

Guys, Regina crossed the moral event horizon, m’kay. I know we say that a lot around here, but I think it bears repeating — she crossed the moral event horizon. Meaning, that she went past the point of no return, no coming back, no road back to humanity, because she passed the point any human with a conscience would’ve stopped or at least paused and felt some remorse, some pangs of guilt. But noooo, not Regina. She crossed the moral event horizon several times over and over and she doesn't regret it. That's on the record — she doesn't regret what she did. She doesn’t understand why people don’t like her so she has them killed, m’kay. That’s insane. She doesn’t see people as people but objects that are to be used and discarded all dependent on if they give her her deserved happiness. Again, that’s insane. As others have said before, she’s a narcissistic and a homicidal sociopath.

 

But hey, if you think Hitler capable of suddenly growing a conscience and deserving a happy ending, knock yourself out...I'll be over here rolling my eyes at the idea that someone, who on the record has said they don't regret what they did and not even electric shocks made her rejigger her thinking, will suddenly stop being a narcissistic homicidal sociopath. For me, you just can't put that level of obscene crazy toothpaste back into the tube)

[Bashful82]

I think this is quite apropos.....someone read the writers minds ages ago....http://youtu.be/t6em5XNkiIA

[KingOfHearts]

 

I think this is quite apropos.....someone read the writers minds ages ago....http://youtu.be/t6em5XNkiIA

Are you sure this isn't the promo for 4B? Seriously - it's the exact same characters. I call plagiarism.

Edited February 20, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[Shanna Marie]

But hey, if you think Hitler capable of suddenly growing a conscience and deserving a happy ending, knock yourself out...I'll be over here rolling my eyes at the idea that someone, who on the record has said they don't regret what they did and not even electric shocks made her rejigger her thinking, will suddenly stop being a narcissistic homicidal sociopath. For me, you just can't put that level of obscene crazy toothpaste back into the tube)

Well, yeah, if we're being realistic about people, then someone who's done what Regina has done who grew a conscience would probably subsequently go mad and commit suicide or spend the rest of her life having to be heavily medicated. A good person wouldn't be able to live with it. Just her father's murder alone would destroy her if she allowed herself to think that casting the curse was wrong and pointless. That's the lunacy of the Quest for a Happy Ending plot. If someone who's done the things she's done thinks she deserves a happy ending, that's a good sign that she isn't good, isn't reformed, and doesn't deserve a happy ending. If she were really reformed, she'd believe she didn't deserve any happiness after the things she's done, and she'd be more focused on helping others find happiness than on demanding her own happiness.

 

But I was trying to be realistic within the fantasy of new writers taking over, and I don't think new writers would be allowed to jettison a character who is apparently as popular as Regina is. Never mind that I can't think of a case where keeping around a villain because of popularity has really worked (there's some disagreement about Spike on Buffy, but I never felt like that entirely worked). I think the quality of the show would leap forward considerably if they got rid of Regina (and did so in a way that didn't make a martyr of her so that they'd all be naming their future children after her), but since I don't think the network would allow such a move, we're stuck with either keeping her around as a minor antagonist who can never be defeated but who can also never win or making some move toward true redemption and reform.

[KAOS Agent]

I think there is a problem with the writers being unable to let go of their original storytelling method. So long as the writers continue with having fairybacks parallel present day events, they are hamstrung with the leads because there is no more story to tell about their pasts. The more they try to squeeze into a certain timeframe, the more ridiculous it becomes and it also has the problem of ruining previously good stories (see: Bleeding Through).

 

Even Rumpelstiltskin, who should have some more flexibility given his age, has this problem. In their original story, he worked well. He was set on the one goal of reuniting with his son, so all of his machinations with various characters made sense because it was all part of one plan. However, they can't stop with his being involved in every single character's past and it not only makes him stupid (how'd he miss the 46521354651 ways to get to this world?), but just becomes ridiculous that Rumpel felt the need to be involved in all of these other things when his raison d'être was to find Bae. All of these other distractions make no sense in that context.

 

Since I don't think the writers will ever let go of any of these characters, they need to retire the fairyback/present day storytelling and come up with some new construct for the show. Maybe that's the plan for 5A? They could have the author storyline morph into some sort of flash sideways what if AU's or something, so you still have Enchanted Forest fantasy without the need for the continuous contrivances/ret-cons.

Edited February 20, 2015 by KAOS Agent

[Curio]

Are you sure this isn't the promo for 4B? Seriously - it's the exact same characters.

And the exact same premise. I mean, look at these lyrics: "Maybe we're the heroes too / But a happy ever after / Is a dream that won't come true / I dream of being happy / I dream of finding glory / I dream of living happily ever after / After all we've tried / We have always been denied / Doesn't matter what we do / Now a happy ever after / Is a dream that won't come true."

 

How is that not Operation Mongoose/Regina's whining in a nutshell? I'm just imagining Adam & Eddy huddled around a computer watching this and getting so excited to use the premise as their main 4B plot. I know it would never ever happen, but I would laugh so hard if the makers of the Youtube video sued Once's writers for stealing stealing their idea. (They did make it back in May 2014...) But the writers would get out of the law suit by saying how they legitimately believe their villains deserve happy endings, whereas the video is poking fun at that delusional idea.

 

I think there is a problem with the writers being unable to let go of their original storytelling method. So long as the writers continue with having fairybacks parallel present day events, they are hamstrung with the leads because there is no more story to tell about their pasts.

 

Yep. The only characters we haven't really dug deep into their pasts are Hook, Emma, Belle, and Charming. Belle and Charming don't really bring much to the table in the current timeline, so seeing their flashbacks becomes pointless (see: White Out and Family Business). Emma is the lead protagonist driving the plot so we'll never tire of seeing her backstories (as long as they aren't like Breaking Glass). But Hook is the one character where there's so much depth and mystery surrounding his past that it completely baffles me that we don't know more about it. Out of all the main characters (Regina, Rumple, Emma, Charming, Snow, and Belle), he's the only one where we haven't even seen his parents on screen or know their names. Part of me wonders how much that's the writers holding off for a future storyline, or how much they don't see the potential they've already written.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Curio

[Souris]

I think this is quite apropos.....someone read the writers minds ages ago....http://youtu.be/t6em5XNkiIA

 

Holy freaking crap. That IS the 4B plot!

[FabulousTater]

But I was trying to be realistic within the fantasy of new writers taking over, and I don't think new writers would be allowed to jettison a character who is apparently as popular as Regina is. Never mind that I can't think of a case where keeping around a villain because of popularity has really worked

I follow. In my notion of a reboot, if the network was going to go through the trouble of yanking the current show runners and writers and handing it all over to another group, I envisioned the network giving this new group carte blanche. So if this new group wants to kill a character they can, and in that case, I would start with Regina.

But, speaking of popularity of a character, do we know for sure that Regina is that popular? I know that her fanatics are strong but does that actually translate into a legion of people across the entire viewing audience who really love the character or is it a very vocal few? And I mean as in are there real data numbers somewhere to prove it and not "OMG tumblr has soooo many Regina reblogs!" kind of evidence. Because it’s amazing how in this day and age a vocal few can sound like a horde. It only takes a few overly invested fans constantly hounding the spoiler/entertainment sites to make it sound like everyone in the TV audience is just begging for more Regina, and therefore making it appear that the character is more “popular” than she really is. Seriously, it’s almost stupid easy to do. (I’m sure we’ll never know for certain, but I still want to know. I would love, love, luuuuv to get my hands on any metrics, focus group info, or solid data that the ABC network execs have on this. I want to see that data so badly...)

That said, I think if your writing is strong enough, your story is good and sound and compelling, and you’re producing a good show, that it should be capable of “surviving” the death of a popular character, especially in an ensemble shows (ensemble versus a single protagonist show like say, "Veronica Mars", because killing Veronica Mars would’ve been instant show suicide, IMO). In an ensemble show like ONCE (although, some characters have become more heavily featured since s1, so to say ONCE is an "ensemble" show is probably arguable, but just go with it for now), if the only reason you're keeping a character around is that they are “popular”, but you finally decide to kill that character off and doing so causes the show to go into ratings cardiac arrest, then your show was more than likely just shite, wasn’t it. No one was really watching for the overall story but just sticking around for this one character (and arguably out of loyalty to the actor portraying that character). And in that case, I think you kinda deserve to get cancelled (or be kicked out and your show rebooted with new show runners and writers).

I mean, ensemble shows like "Game of Thrones" & "The Walking Dead" kill (arguably) popular characters with frequency, and despite that they are ratings monsters. To me that says the shows are telling a good story that people want to watch to it’s finality even though they may see their favorite character die. And that I think is proof of writers and show runners that really know how to tell a a good story.

 

ETA: Killing one of the main protagonists or main antagonists of an ensemble show can definitely change the DNA of the show, but sometimes it's change for the better. I just think killing Regina off (small eta: or just writing her off) would improve ONCE immensely. 

Edited February 20, 2015 by FabulousTater

[Dani-Ellie]

But, speaking of popularity of a character, do we know for sure that Regina is that popular? I know that her fanatics are strong but does that actually translate into a legion of people across the entire viewing audience who really love the character or is it a very vocal few?

 

I don't know how scientific this is but I have seen more and more fans on Tumblr/Twitter/comments sections coming forward and being all "enough with Regina." People are getting tired of her, even people who used to like/enjoy her. Which, maybe instead of trying to appease one loud group of fans and/or confusing loud with popular, they should look at more empirical data like the big giant drop in ratings in the back half of season two. It may or may not be coincidence that the ratings dropped off when Regina backslid and spent half a season trying to kill the Charmings but one would think it would be worth looking into, simply from a longevity standpoint. I mean, its ratings aren't dire but a sharp drop-off like that indicates to me that there was something going on within the show that made a whole bunch of people tune out all at once.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Dani-Ellie

[Camera One]

I mean, ensemble shows like "Game of Thrones" & "The Walking Dead" kill (arguably) popular characters with frequency, and despite that they are ratings monsters. To me that says the shows are telling a good story that people want to watch to it’s finality even though they may see their favorite character die. And that I think is proof of writers and show runners that really know how to tell a a good story.

 

I don't think killing off lots of characters is necessarily proof that there's good writing, even though those two cited shows do have that.  Writing a show which is kill-who-may is in many ways easier.  People tune in because they want to know who will die.  There is constant suspense of who won't make it.   Once you're "done" telling someone's story, you don't need to be as creative trying to get blood out of a stone, since you can just dispose of them.  To me, a good writer can find a story to tell, find more layers of a character to uncover, without necessarily resorting to sex and violence.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Camera One

[LizaD]

I think Adam and Eddy love the fairybacks, moreso than the present stuff it seems like to me, for 2 reasons. 1. It's a holdover from Lost which I honestly don't get. They were not the show runners of that show, merely staff writers. Why are they so obsessed with all the shoutouts to Lost? You'd think writers would want to get out from under the shadow of something that was not originally theirs in the first place. It worked well for the first season because the fairybacks were unfolding a plot that was a mystery and began in the middle. That's no longer true which brings me to the 2nd reason why they are still in love with the fairybacks-they use it as a character moment and they happen to think they are character-driven writers writing a character-driven show. 

 

Maybe part of it has to do with liking all the fantasy stuff better that the fairybacks allow them to do but then why not just move the whole shebang back to the forest? Or open a permanent portal for free traveling through the worlds.

 

 

Even Rumpelstiltskin, who should have some more flexibility given his age, has this problem. In their original story, he worked well. He was set on the one goal of reuniting with his son, so all of his machinations with various characters made sense because it was all part of one plan.

Because they have to make every single relationship personal and all soap opera like. Contrary to Adam and Eddy's opinion it makes it less interesting. Rump as the mastermind or the root of everything would still work even if he never met so and so or never manipulated so and so. He's the most powerful sorcerer in their realm, using powerful people as pawns so that should have big ass consequences and touch a lot of other people without a direct relationship to Rump. It expands their world and would make it that much more believable with all the mashups they are doing. Instead it feels like they're in some rural town of 40 people who are all inbred, which actually might explain the stupidity running rampant there. They need to learn how to play the game of 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon instead of 1 degree.

 

 

Were Regina not on the show at all, the problems with the writing would still be there - they just would be different. Because Regina's not the problem, she's the symptom. The problem is bad writing and lack of self-awareness.

Yes and no. Woegina is their Mary Sue and that sucks majorly and is the single biggest turn-off for any show and accounts for a lot of the bad writing itself. The bad writing would still there but the lack of self-awareness only extends to Woegina. Look at Ingrid's story and tell me they don't know how to write a "redemption" story.  Look at Anastasia on Wonderland.  The problem is I don't think they are writing a redemption story at all because they don't think she needs one and that's a problem specific to her. They also know how to write a villain, see Pan and Jafar.  Hell they are the ones that wrote that line for Elsa when she told Charming that he didn't have to thank her for anything because it was her fault in the first place. But when it comes to Woegina? It's "screw the evil Charmings for ditching Woegina on the side of the road when she save their butts" even though she put them in danger in the first place. See the difference?

 

Or compare her to Rump. Besides Belle, is anyone going around town begging for his friendship? Did they have Emma console Rump when he lied to Belle by saying, "It's ok Rump, I lied to Henry too so see I'm just like you! You aren't so bad. Wanna be my best friend cause we're practically twinsies?" Have the writers ever said people were messed up for not kissing Rump's ass? Rump's relationship to the town or the Charmings is not that different from Woegina so what gives? That tells me it's a Woegina specific problem not a general bad writing problem. I'm not convinced that someone else will just take the Mary Sue crown in her place either.

 

 

it was the same thing over and over and over

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. That's all procedurals are and they thrive for decades. Rump can be doing the same stuff over and over and with Carlyle's talent it could still be interesting. He could and should be like Reddington over on Blacklist. Carlyle is as talented as Spader in my book. I'm not going to claim the writers for Blacklist are so much more talented than the Once writers either, maybe a smidgen more but it works on there. I don't claim to know the entire Blacklist fandom but I have yet to see anyone wishing Red would turn into a woobie with an "epic" love story or that he be redeemed or complaining when he screws someone over just when he looked like he was on their team. And he is still a compelling character to watch.

Edited February 20, 2015 by LizaD

[FabulousTater]

Writing a show which is kill-who-may is in many ways easier.

That's highly debatable. The point I was making is that in an ensemble show, killing a popular character (which btw - I didn't specify that it has to be a violent death. Why are you assuming it's going to be violent ? Hell, wrt Regina, maybe using that much dark magic took years off her life and she just dies quietly of natural magical causes), but if you're offended by the term "killing off" then assume that they are only "written off" the show (they happily sail away to the Undying Lands, buy a condo in Maui, become happy hermits in the foot hills of the Alps... pick your innocuous and inoffensive destination of choice ) their death or being written off a show, shouldn't kill* the entire show (*and by "kill" I don't mean a violent death of the show, I mean the ratings take a nosedive :P). 

 

I think a well written ensemble show should survive the lone death or writing off of an arguably "popular" character. Here's a nonviolent example for you: Grey's Anatomy. They wrote off Sandra Oh's character (last year, I think). She was, I feel, a popular character, but when she left (FYI - there was no sex or violence in her leaving so it wasn't a desperate grab for viewers who love sex and violence) the show didn't crater in the ratings. Grey's Anatomy is still going strong. There are more examples of other shows doing the same. So my point is removing one single character from an ensemble shouldn't kill a show. And it's rarely the easy solution if it's a good popular character. It's the easy solution if the show runners are having trouble with the actor (you know, show politics, actors pissed off the writers or something). But killing off a character because the actor is a problem is not the same as removing the "character" for story reasons.

 

ETA:

 

People tune in because they want to know who will die.

I think there are people who watch for that but that is a minority. I think that group of people are the ones that when you look at ratings contribute to the sudden (but comparatively small) ratings spikes. You see these spikes, a few tenths of a point up, for the episode a character dies, and then the following episode it drops back down. But be that as it may, you can't discount the fact that these shows maintain a large viewing audience because they are good and the stories are solid. Sex and violence have an appeal for some viewers certainly, but I don't think one can say "Oh, these shows are only popular because they have sex and violence." There are plenty of shows out there that are nothing but sex and violence and don't have anywhere near the ratings. What the sex and violence guarantees is nothing but a TV-MA rating. You still have to have a well written show and good story. Just because some people don't mind sex and violence on a TV show doesn't means they are only in it for the lewdness and violence. Just as you can still have a really good and solid show without those elements.

Edited February 20, 2015 by FabulousTater

[Camera One]

I think Adam and Eddy love the fairybacks, moreso than the present stuff it seems like to me, for 2 reasons. 1. It's a holdover from Lost which I honestly don't get. They were not the show runners of that show, merely staff writers. Why are they so obsessed with all the shoutouts to Lost? You'd think writers would want to get out from under the shadow of something that was not originally theirs in the first place. It worked well for the first season because the fairybacks were unfolding a plot that was a mystery and began in the middle. That's no longer true which brings me to the 2nd reason why they are still in love with the fairybacks-they use it as a character moment and they happen to think they are character-driven writers writing a character-driven show. 

 

I think there are a few reasons for this.  A&E write each episode for the "surprise twist", so it's to their advantage to stick to that formula of us watching the flashback and keeping us guessing before providing some random surprise.  That takes up half the episode, so it takes the pressure off nothing much happening in the current-day plot.  That allows them to plan very little of substance between the intro of the new threat, and the villain's demise at the end of the half-season.  The flashbacks also allow them to constantly visit their favorites... Sparkly Imp and The Evil Queen.  

 

SO my point is removing once single character shouldn't kill a show and it's rarely the easy solution if it's a good popular character.

 

Yes, I agree with that point.  It's not "easy" in the sense it risks the audience leaving, but it's easy in terms of the writing because a goodbye or a death episode (the latter especially) has built-in emotional stakes, which makes it more likely to engage and move the audience.

[FabulousTater]

I just realized a great way (or maybe just an amusing way, YMMV) to write Regina's death for our imaginary reboot. So as Shanna Marie suggested, Regina goes back to being full blown evil, but her using all that dark magic in Storybrooke is incredibly taxing and is literally eating away at her life. Finally she's on her death bed/stone slab in her crypt, dying and Rumpel pops in. Regina is all "What's happening to me? Why am I withering away and dying like this?" And Rumpel says, "Because, dearie, all magic comes with a price and the price of all that dark magic you've been using is that it consumes your life. Literally." Regina is of course gobsmacked and indignant. She replies "Why didn't you tell me?!" and Rumpel responds, teasingly, "What part of 'all magic comes with a price' did you not understand? <insert Rumpel's impish maniacal laugh>". And then...Regina dies.

 

Yay! Party at The Tater Cult's Clubhouse!

Edited February 20, 2015 by FabulousTater

[KAOS Agent]

 

Look at Ingrid's story and tell me they don't know how to write a "redemption" story.  Look at Anastasia on Wonderland.  The problem is I don't think they are writing a redemption story at all because they don't think she needs one and that's a problem specific to her. They also know how to write a villain, see Pan and Jafar.  Hell they are the ones that wrote that line for Elsa when she told Charming that he didn't have to thank her for anything because it was her fault in the first place.

 

Jane Espenson wrote the episode with Elsa's self awareness. She was also the de facto showrunner for Wonderland. She is also the person responsible for a lot of Rumpel's early characterization, where there is clearly self awareness in the writing even if Rumpel is a bit woobie. She is the only writer to have said flat out that Regina is a rapist. She also wrote "Witch Hunt" which had Zelena ridiculing Regina's woe is me attitude. Not that she isn't totally weird at times - she also wrote "Bleeding Through".

 

That said, there is an interview in one of the DVD extras where she says, "Heroes and villains, they’re both about fairness, they’re both about justice - they use the same yardsticks they just come up with different answers." Personally, I like this assessment because it does not try to apply a morality to either side.

[regularlyleaded]

That said, there is an interview in one of the DVD extras where she says, "Heroes and villains, they’re both about fairness, they’re both about justice - they use the same yardsticks they just come up with different answers." Personally, I like this assessment because it does not try to apply a morality to either side.

Hehe, you know what? I never liked that line because it skirts around a big problem that I have with this show: that it fails to apply morality. And when it does it's skewed beyond recognition. ;)

 

Plus, whuh? It sounds like nonsense to me. If you're using the same yardsticks, then that means we've all agreed upon a unit of measurement. If we have the "same yardsticks" and I measure the length of a pencil and you measure the same pencil the result must be the same. That's what makes it a yardstick: a common, agreed upon universal unit of measurement. You shouldn't come up with a different answer. If we came up with different answers then we're not using the same yardstick; a centimeter is a centimeter is a centimeter. In terms of "fairness" and "justice", if we're all using the "same yardsticks" then my dictionary should be your dictionary. But clearly on this show, that is not the case. My dictionary is not their dictionary, The Charmings' dictionary is not Rumpel's dictionary, and ain't no one got a copy of Regina's dictionary. That dictionary is one of a kind (crazy).

Edited February 20, 2015 by regularlyleaded

[Camera One]

That quote never made sense to me.  Villains are about justice for themselves, their definition for "fairness" is anything but.  Their yardstick is totally messed up and rigged to their own advantage.  However, the quote does perfectly encapsulate the view of the writers on this show.  No morality, so both sides are equally valid, and you can just push down the hero side of the scale to bring the villain side up.  Which is exactly what "Bleeding Through" did.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Camera One

[Souris]

It's what the show does all in all. The writers push down the heroes to create "balance." Which is BS.

[KAOS Agent]

But I think the idea is correct. She's saying that everyone looks for fairness and justice, their measurements are just different. It acknowledges that some people are just batshit crazy and their scales are totally out of whack. And honestly look at the Morality thread where the discussion about Snow & David's sense of justice and fairness are also messed up. I'm just saying that I appreciate her not saying things like A&E say where it's essentially Snow & David are just big meanies to poor Regina. She seems to take a more balanced view of both sides ("Bleeding Through" excepted and I can't say how much say she has in the overall episode plot).

Edited February 20, 2015 by KAOS Agent

[regularlyleaded]

But I think the idea is correct. She's saying that everyone looks for fairness and justice, their measurements are just different. It acknowledges that some people are just batshit crazy and their scales are totally out of whack. And honestly look at the Morality thread where the discussion about Snow & David's sense of justice and fairness are also messed up. I'm just saying that I appreciate her not saying things like A&E say where it's essentially Snow & David are just big meanies to poor Regina. She seems to take a more balanced view of both sides ("Bleeding Through" excepted and I can't say how much say she has in the overall episode plot).

If so she made her point in a rather...nonsensical fashion. She says they all have the same yardstick but came up with different answers? What? I can see how the interpretation could be as you pointed out, but it's said so half-assed that talk about lost in translation. Maybe all the "What the hell you talking about, Cletus!?" moments on this show aren't all A&E's fault.

[LizaD]

Rumpel's early characterization, where there is clearly self awareness in the writing even if Rumpel is a bit woobie.

Rump has always been self-aware and is still self-aware even without Jane's writing though. In the door conversation with Emma, he practically all but says outright he's still a bad guy who will always do the wrong thing. He has never claimed to be right or good, even with Hook or Zelena, both of which wronged him. At one point he tells Ingrid he's created a bunch of monsters, taking undue credit in my opinion. He says straight out that he's going to betray Emma even though technically he never lied to her. I'm not sure who wrote those episodes but it wasn't Jane. Adam and Eddy also have never shied away from calling Rump out as being wrong. The story with Belle and the dagger being an example. They even said it's something that Belle has to forgive Rump for. You know if it was Woegina, Belle would be called life ruiner.

And Jane writing Bleeding Through says it all. That and Breaking Glass are the most offensive Woegina writing and propping on the show ever. No script Adam and Eddy have written themselves sticks out in my mind as being that heinous so I don't think it's a specific writer issue for being self-aware or lack of at all. It's a collective writers issue with the character of Woegina specifically and it starts from the top with the duo.

It seriously boggles my mind that Rump trying to get his happy ending is wrong and evil but Woegina trying to get hers is all righteous and holy. On top of that, to compound the crime, everyone and their mom is obligated to help her get her happy ending and if they don't don't, they are evil. How can any of the writers not see this and get how screwed up it all is?

but it's easy in terms of the writing because a goodbye or a death episode (the latter especially) has built-in emotional stakes, which makes it more likely to engage and move the audience.

So these writers are so bad they can't even write the easy stuff. I can't think of one death that has been moving or emotional on this show. Neal's should've been the easiest game in town considering the connections he had and yet it was like random soldier death. The other reason deaths are written, is that it's an easy way to get the characters left behind to change or start a new arc. Or to launch a new story. Pretty sure Neal's, Pan's, Zelena's, Ingrid's, Graham's etc deaths did squat. Why? And this problem only applies for the present day stuff. All the deaths in the fairybacks are used appropriately in the stereotypical melodramatic manner. I would say the fairybacks deaths are exaggerated even. Each death is treated like an "end of the world" scenario for the characters. I just really don't get it. That tells me the writers know what's up, they just choose not to.

[FabulousTater]

It seriously boggles my mind that Rump trying to get his happy ending is wrong and evil but Woegina trying to get hers is all righteous and holy. On top of that, to compound the crime, everyone and their mom is obligated to help her get her happy ending and if they don't don't, they are evil. How can any of the writers not see this and get how screwed up it all is?

Drugs?

[KAOS Agent]

 

So these writers are so bad they can't even write the easy stuff. I can't think of one death that has been moving or emotional on this show. Neal's should've been the easiest game in town considering the connections he had and yet it was like random soldier death.

 

Neal's death was totally squandered. They used it as a prop for a 3B recap. Rumpel sat at his graveside and monologued a summary of his misdeeds, promised to be a better man in Bae's honor and then promptly chucked that for world domination. What the hell?

 

 

If so she made her point in a rather...nonsensical fashion. She says they all have the same yardstick but came up with different answers? What? I can see how the interpretation could be as you pointed out, but it's said so half-assed that talk about lost in translation.

 

I agree that it's messy, but that whole extra was intercut with interviews with various actors/writers, so it's hard to know if she had said something else earlier or later in the interview that was cut that put it in better context or clarified. If I compare heroes and villains and their measurements for fairness and justice, I'd pick Emma as the most accurate and I consider her more grey than anything. She is the balance of that yardstick between the overly self-righteous Snow and complete freakshow Evil Queen.

[FurryFury]

I think you’re kinda missing my point? I never said tropes are bad. My original post said nothing of tropes being bad — I never even used the word “trope”.

 

Well, you never said the word "trope", but you were definitely generalizing. "No more writing redemption for villains" pretty much means "Don't use this trope anymore", because redemption for villains IS a trope, pretty much. Is it "Hell Face Turn" on TVTropes? I don't remember.

 

My point is that for this imaginary reboot that we’re talking about here — a reboot wherein there are a new set of writers and new show runners, and therefore the old writing problems leave with them— the best course of action IMO is to make a clean break of all the crap written by the previous writing group, and to do so involves dropping characters that weigh down the show.

 

Well, from a business standpoint, I wouldn't kill Regina off. She's basically the face of the show for many people, like it or not. Unlike Snow and Charming, who have countless pop culture incarnations, Regina is probably the most definitive Evil Queen from Snow White's tale since the Disney version, like it or not. Now, from a creative standpoint, I kinda get your reaction - but if the writing gets better, there would be no reason to kill her off, too. If it's possible to fix Snow or Rumple or Belle, who all have got shit writing at some point, then it would be possible to fix Regina.

 

Now, the character I would get rid of would be Henry, actually. Not even because i hate him that much (I dislike him, but not enough to hate), but because his role on the show is pretty much done, and he only harms both Regina and Emma by being his plot device self. I guess it's also possible to give him his s1 personality back, but what would be the reason? Kids are rarely interesting characters by themselves, at least on TV (they fare much better in books). Not much reason to keep the dead weight.

[FabulousTater]

Well, you never said the word "trope", but you were definitely generalizing. "No more writing redemption for villains" pretty much means "Don't use this trope anymore", because redemption for villains IS a trope, pretty much. Is it "Hell Face Turn" on TVTropes? I don't remember.

I mean, I was talking specifically about ONCE and the future one-off villains that keep popping up. I want them to be evil and own it because I'm tired of woobie villains. So is your assumption that I'm generalizing about all of the villains on this show or all villains in all shows everywhere? I'm unclear on you're assumptions. You know what? Nevermind. Just to be clear, here's what I be sayin':

 

"I do formally declare, as a person posting specifically in the ONCE forums, in the ONCE writers thread, and in reply to a post specifically concerning the character of Regina ( aka Woegina, aka St. Victimus) from the show ONCE and her sucktastic redemption arc, that I do hereby announce my firm conviction that Regina's (aka, Woegina, aka St. Victimus) redemption arc should never be revisited. Furthermore, I formally request, encourage, and approve that TPTB (The Powers That Be) of ONCE or ABC initiate a moratorium on the redemptions of future villains (not current or previously known villains, just the future one-off villains that pop up every seasons arc) on the show of ONCE because these sucky writers have ruined all the redemption arcs for it's regular cast of villains and as a result I am totally sick of the word redemption and their concept of 'redemption' and the stories they write about it, and even if we had new writers or show runners I don't want any more woobie villain redemptions for future villains on the show ONCE. Just be evil and own it, future members of Team Evil. Just be evil.

 

Signed, this day Friday, February 20^th in the year of someone's lord, 2015, by me,

FabulousTater"

 

 

Well, from a business standpoint, I wouldn't kill Regina off. She's basically the face of the show for many people, like it or not.

Based on what sources of fact? Sources, please. In all seriousness, I would like to see these official numbers, please. Tumblr reblogs, Twitter tweets/retweets and fan polls don't count. They are too easily fudged and manipulated. Actually, I asked a few posts up-thread if someone knew where this data was (if it existed out in the public somewhere). Show me the data. Just because some like the character doesn't mean all people do let alone a significant number -- in this day and age, a vocal few can easily mimic the outcry of a horde -- and the perception (or misperception) of a character's popularity doesn't mean the show lives or dies by that character. You can kill or write-off a popular character and keep a show going (and possibly make it better with their death or writing them off). It's not 'Inconceivable!" Even in Disney's iconic Snow White story, guess what happened? The Evil Queen DIED.  Like it or not.

 

I kinda get your reaction - but if the writing gets better, there would be no reason to kill her off, too.

And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. There's a better chance of pigs across the world growing wings and flying into the sky than these writers getting "better". Exactly how many more seasons will everyone be holding their breath waiting for that to happen? Regina is their achilles heel. It's like their blind love for her short circuits their brains and renders them into drooling idiots. The writers can't write her better and the result over these long 4 seasons is that they've completely ruined the character, and along the way have also utterly ruined other characters as a direct result of their treatment of Regina. I find the character intolerable and there's nothing worth salvaging. So if there was a chance of a reboot with new writers and new show runners (as was the original context of the posts up-thread which is something I'm not sure everyone picked up on), they should jettison the character because she's played out. Sometimes you gotta know when to call time of death (for a character).

Edited February 20, 2015 by FabulousTater