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

[FurryFury]

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.

 

If they are, there's a reason why. Because people care about her, a lot. I don't like Evil Regal fandom or Regina as a character - but it's pretty clear she inspires a very strong reaction in people, and these characters are important on TV. I don't really want to search for facts, I don't care about it that much - but I constantly see people asking about her in interviews, people talking about her on social media, etc. And it actually makes sense, despite how shoddily she's written. Attractive villainous characters (and sometimes even unattractive) often inspire this reaction in public. Like, say, The Vampire Diaries fandom and Damon Salvatore, or before that, Buffy fandom and Spike, lots of examples. Your basic "Draco in leather pants" syndrome. Also, she was pretty fabulous - strong opinions, gorgeous gowns, heavy make-up - all designed to draw your eyes to her. She was snarky, she wasn't really connected or dependent on any male character like it happens so often with female villains, and then she was given a tragic backstory. Of course many viewers invested in her, and pretty heavily.

 

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.

 

I'm not sure if there's a way to learn how casual viewers react to a certain element of a show. Maybe ratings, although nowadays, with many different ways of watching TV, it's no longer applicable. But the amount of casual watchers isn't the only important point. The depth of investment is also important. People who really, really care will buy merchandise and DVDs, they will recommend the show to their friends, they'll be asking about it on entertainment sites, keep the buzz going. There are examples of low-rated canceled shows that got movies simply because their fans cared that much. So yeah, even if casual public didn't care about Regina at all (which I doubt is true, as much as I'd love that), the fact that her fandom is THAT vocal still matters.

[YaddaYadda]

re: Regina and the writers

 

I think it says a lot when Disney steps in and tells the writers that Regina and Elsa are not the same and then we get barely a minute scene between the two.  I'm happy, Disney thinks like me when it comes to Regina.  She's not a misunderstood villain, she is a villain who reveled in her villainy until recently.

[LizaD]

 

Maybe ratings, although nowadays, with many different ways of watching TV, it's no longer applicable.

Of course ratings matter, in all the ways that count. But I'll take the reply to ratings thread.

 

For what's relevant for this thread is the writers clearly don't give a flying flip over ratings or social media fanbase if if didn't align with their agenda anyway. Case? Coming out of S1 the biggest social media chatter centered around Rumbelle, Rump and Belle. If having a loud rabid social media presence really mattered, this would be Once Upon a Rumbelle with new leading lady Belle. The opposite happened no? They were dismantled starting in 2B and have never been fixed in the way that their online fandom wants it to be fixed nor has Belle ever had a huge presence on the show in the way that even comes near her online presence. Adam and Eddy even pointed out themselves that the Rumbelle wedding dance got the biggest audience reaction for the S4 premiere, bigger than Frozen, and yet I think the writers had them spend a total of 10 minutes sharing screentime the entire 4A. As for how little onliners matter? Rumbelle got the biggest reaction of their sample audience, but show me anyone who thinks that the S1 like ratings number for 4A premiere isn't directly attributed to Frozen.

 

It's a moot point now because the writers have driven away a big portion of that fandom and all that's left are probably the most obsessed Rumbellers. Now I think Hook and Captain Swan have a bigger social media presence than anything Woegina related. For real numbers? Were they not the most tweeted/tumblr/Facebook out of Once? Like Rumbelle, I don't see the writers making the show revolve around them at all nor are they going to crown Hook their new Gary Stu leading man.

 

 

Attractive villainous characters (and sometimes even unattractive) often inspire this reaction in public. Like, say, The Vampire Diaries fandom and Damon Salvatore, or before that, Buffy fandom and Spike, lots of examples. "Draco in leather pants"

Yeah online. So maybe that says something about the teeny tiny subsection of the public that participates online or hardcore fans but nothing about the public. Angel got his own show, not Spike. I don't think J.K. Rowling is hurting in anyway revolving the world of Harry Potter around Harry Potter and not Draco. I also don't think that franchise is even a tiny bit affected by the fact that Harry didn't up with Draco or Hermione didn't end up with Draco, as the onliners would have you believe. I honestly think if Adam and Eddy decided to off Woegina and center the show around Aurora it wouldn't all of a sudden get a 0.5 in the ratings. The draw of Once is mashup of fairytales. It depends on the writers, not public. How do you explain the billion dollar entities that revolve around comic book superheroes? I'm not saying the villains don't play a part in the superheroes stories but they don't drive marketing, the superheroes good guys drive it. So yeah villain types are popular but the most popular or more popular than heroes? Nope, again goes back to what the writers do with their characters.

Edited February 20, 2015 by LizaD

[FabulousTater]

If they are, there's a reason why. Because people care about her, a lot. I don't like Evil Regal fandom or Regina as a character - but it's pretty clear she inspires a very strong reaction in people, and these characters are important on TV. I don't really want to search for facts, I don't care about it that much [...]

So your argument is that writers can't kill a character from a business standpoint, not because facts matter, but because maybe one hundred people (a drop in the bucket) are super vocal about the character to the point of flooding entertainment sites with questions about the character -- making it seem like a lot of people are interested, but again only one hundred -- and all business decisions must then be based on the feelings of these one hundred people because ??? Ya, I don't think so. Facts do indeed matter, especially when your talking “from a business standpoint” which was your argument for not killing Regina. Businesses are about making money and I will tell you right now business people like their facts and data. You’ll be lucky if you don’t get laughed out of an executive meeting if you show up to give a presentation without data or facts and just say, “Well, we should do XYZ because I have a feeling”. Having data and facts matters.

When I say Tumblr, Twitter, and social media are manipulable, I’m not only referring to fans overloading online polls by having 5 people vote over and over for the same character, or creating bots to vote for the character, whereby a passionate one hundred sound like millions, I’m mostly referring to the fact that counting reblogs and tweet hashtags is taking information out of context. You have no idea why someone reblogged or tweeted something. It’s information taken out of context and therefore almost useless when talking about making a decision “from a business standpoint”.

For example, sure Twitter can tell you how many times @OneAbc or #TheEvilQueen was tweeted, but it removes the context, and having that context makes a difference because half of those tweets could say “@OnceAbc sucks and so does #TheEvilQueen”. That’s not the tweet of a happy viewer content with the show. So you see, you can’t just sit there saying “oh, look how many times the #TheEvilQueen was used, that must mean they love her”. That a false equivalency. Without having all the facts and all the data you know next to nothing. The only real information that you can pull from tweet counts and tumblr reblogs and social media in general is that at least people are talking about your product. Whether it’s good or bad you just don’t know. And again, business people like facts. 

 

FWiW, I think these writers do what they want no matter the facts. I don't think they have ever listened to or read a fact or a single media data metric that has crossed their desk concerning this show. If they had I suspect things on this show would be different.

Edited February 20, 2015 by FabulousTater

[Souris]

Scott Nimerfro's latest grossness.

[RadioGirl27]

So, so gross and disgusting.

[Curio]

Scott Nimerfro's latest grossness.

 

I think my response is better off in the fandom thread...

[daxx]

A true pig he is.

[Shanna Marie]

I noticed that people were retweeting that to Adam and Eddy, but that's to the level I think it should be escalated to the network or even the parent company.

[Souris]

I think my response is better off in the fandom thread...

 

I think my response is better off censored for the faint of heart.

[KingOfHearts]

That's unprofessional and disrespectful to women. It's sad they hired someone like that to write a family show. If there's a way for marriage equality to be realized, this is not how to do it.

Edited February 21, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[Kktjones]

I just think it's ridiculous for a writer to engage and call himself "BFFs" with people who are tweeting incredibly rude things about the show and it's storylines/characters. Shouldn't the writers be supporting the things that are part of the show? Does he read the hashtags in the tweets he responds to? Does he realize that these people hate on everything and everyone to do with the show? Does he care that Colin (and likely other actors) follow him and see him interacting with people that want his character to die? Sorry, I'm just so disgusted with him and with everything surrounding the show these days.

[Mathius]

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.

But how the heck is "the good person" supposed to be salvaged from the ashes of the bad in a satisfactory way after all the irreversible bad he's done? A Rumple redemption faces the same problems as a Regina redemption: he crossed a line a long time ago and has racked up an abominably high body count. Trying to use the Dark One curse to absolve him is as bad as the seperation of Evil Queen and Regina, the Dark One curse did not possess him, it just brought all the darkness within him to the forefront, as you yourself pointed out (similar to how cancer brought out the darkness in Walter White.)

I honestly feel that many fans of Rumple and the Rumbelle relationship fixate on all Rumple's woobifying moments or the sad points in his past and use those as a justification as to why Belle should "save him" and he should live happily ever after. This is forgetting the many, many, MANY horrible things he has done to others out of his own self-interest over hundreds of years, and that those overweigh his good moments on the karmic scale. I don't believe Rumple's part in the story was EVER supposed to be a truly redemptive one, I think he was always supposed to be the main villain, just one with more complexity and pathos than most.

Honestly, a Rumple happy ending, especially one married to Belle and/or with his son, became a problematic notion the moment we learned that Rumple murdered his previous wife who gave birth to said son. In real life, someone who murders his ex-wife shouldn't get to live happily with a new wife and the son of the dead ex-wife, he should be locked in prison forever. Even Robert Carlyle is strongly against Rumple receiving a happy ending after his centuries of evil-doing. The only logical light at the end of the tunnel for Rumple is a redemptive death. He's had one before, maybe he'll have one again.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Mathius

[Souris]

Jane Espenson seemed to find Scott's tweet amusing and chimed in.

[KAOS Agent]

Funny story, "vagenda" has actually been used on TV. Neither Jane nor Scott can have it.

[Serena]

They can both take several seats back and stay the hell away from all things Fringe, thank you very much.

[KingOfHearts]

The respect I have for the writers is just a spiraling slide down into a void of disappointment... It's sad they appear to have the same twisted moral standard that's in their scripts.

Edited February 21, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[Souris]

At least Adam doesn't support the use of "cliterference."

Edited February 22, 2015 by Souris

[KingOfHearts]

 

At least Adam doesn't support the use of "cliterference."

Alright, I'll give him a sliver of respect for that. At least its the showrunner saying that and not the other way around.

[YaddaYadda]

Funny story, "vagenda" has actually been used on TV. Neither Jane nor Scott can have it.

I actually thought Jane used the word sarcastically but that's just me.  This stuff is like watching General Hospital.  It's terrible and makes no sense.  I guess we can also make the argument that it's like watching Once.  I'm glad I'm not deep in the whole fandom thing.

[yeswedo]

There have been a lot of off topic posts here in the past few days. We're closing the thread for now pending further review.

 

 

[yeswedo]

Re-opening this thread. Please keep posts on the topic of the writers. If it continues to be a repeat of discussions that belong in other threads we'll delete posts or close the thread.

[Mari]

In the Preshow, Sean Maguire mentioned how very much beloved the Regina character is on Twitter. At another point one of the writers--I can't remember which one--said that they knew they had succeeded in making Regina nuanced when people are upset that no one ate her lasagna. Do you suppose we can consider this confirmation that some of the writing choices are made based on what the writers are being tweeted on a regular basis?

I know we joked about it in the past, but if they are truly making serious story changes based on who is the most hysterical on Twitter that would explain a lot of the problems with current storylines.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Mari

[LizaD]

No, they're writing it deliberately to make it so Woegina the sad little kitty that is the biggest victim ever and are getting positive reinforcement from the camp that does like Mary Sue Woegina fanfiction. Back when they used to do the podcasts I remember them saying that the when they zoomed in on Woegina's sad kitty face at the end of the 2A finale they went how mean the Charmings are for not inviting her after she saved them. That was before any feedback so... They are the ones who write in the 10 million close up shots of her sad face at the exclusion of everything else.  That is to manipulate the audience into what they want and it succeeded on some level. And why wouldn't it? If you're writing fanfiction, the audience you're most likely to attract are people who love the Mary Sues in the fanfiction no?

 

If they're really being influenced by Twitter where is the focus on Rumbelle? And why doesn't Rump get the same Woegina treatment?

[Writing Wrongs]

I was remembering back when The Dark One was someone to be feared and had the greatest power. He could turn a guy into a snail and then step on him. Now all the villains they introduce don't seem afraid at all and actively mock him. What happened?

[Serena]

Yeah, I don't buy their "oh look at people's weird reaction, being upset Regina wasn't invited!". Uhm, no. They deliberately set that up with the intent of getting people to feel sorry for Regina. Most of the audience will buy whatever a show is selling, because they don't really watch a show like OUAT with their critical thinking switched on (this ain't Breaking Bad... and even for that show, didn't people yell at the wife for being so mean to her husband who was awful? I didn't watch, but there was a big deal made about it).

[FurryFury]

I was remembering back when The Dark One was someone to be feared and had the greatest power. He could turn a guy into a snail and then step on him. Now all the villains they introduce don't seem afraid at all and actively mock him. What happened?

The writers just really love making him look like the underdog, it's a common pattern. He often deliberately sets himself up this way. The only thing it succeeds in doing in this case is make the QoDs look stupid for working with him when he inevitably betrays them.

Edited March 2, 2015 by FurryFury

[Mari]

The writers just really love making him look like the underdog, it's a common pattern. He often deliberately sets himself up this way. The only thing it succeeds in doing in this case is make the QoDs look stupid for working with him when he inevitably betrays them.

and now I have Firefly's Wash in my head cursing Rumple's sudde but inevitable betrayal. :)

It really does show their inability to be flexible with their writing, though, doesn't it?

[tennisgurl]

I feel like writers these days, on this show and others, need to walk a very fine line when it comes to listening to fans. Giving into fan demands, especially when your listening to places like Twitter, which tends to be based strongly around BIG FEELS and I HATE SUCH AND SUCH. Writers who just do whatever their loudest fans want them to are clearly not very confident in their own ability to create good story lines. Doing stuff just because its popular leads to things like the Woegina stuff, or the downfall of shows like Heroes, where they completely rearranged the show to include characters past their expiration date because they were popular, and the show fell apart. At the end of the day, its the writers story to tell, they're professionals, and I want to see the story that they planned. That being said...

 

Sometimes fans are right. Just look at the Sleepy Hallow debacle, and the #abbiemillsdeservesbetter hash-tag. The writers didn't listen to fans and critics AT ALL, and ignored the things that people loved most about the show, and focused on things that only the writers loved. Yes, the PTB of SH eventually course corrected, and tried to play it off like it was the plan all along, but come on. They were responding to the backlash, and it was actually for the best. Its genuinely a good thing, in my opinion, to hear from fans and critics, and figure out what is working and whats not. Theres nothing wrong with taking a popular character/ship/or story, and increasing the screen time because of positive audience response, in my opinion. The danger lies in basing the whole dang show around a certain segment of your audience, ignoring the rest of it, or making characters behave out of character to prop up the popular character.

 

Like I said, its complicated, especially now, when fans can so freely interact with writers/actors/creators, and vice versa. You want to please people, but also tell a good story. Its hard to tell what these writers are aiming for sometimes.  

[Guest]

I was thinking about the last episode and I realized that there is something that bugs me about how the writers do the fairy backs.  They use the language of the current story arc in the fairy backs.  They use the buzz words that litter the promos.  All the villains want their happy endings.  I find it very distracting given its a time period we are familiar with from season 1.  They didn't talk that way.  The villains had very specific agendas and maybe they thought those agendas would make them happy but I never once heard them say "happy ending". 

 

It would be more interesting if they talked specifically about what exactly they wanted.  I think the audience is smart enough to figure out that in the fairy back they thought X would make them happy but now they think its Y and its really Z.

[Camera One]

I was thinking about the last episode and I realized that there is something that bugs me about how the writers do the fairy backs.  They use the language of the current story arc in the fairy backs.  They use the buzz words that litter the promos.  All the villains want their happy endings.  I find it very distracting given its a time period we are familiar with from season 1.  They didn't talk that way.  The villains had very specific agendas and maybe they thought those agendas would make them happy but I never once heard them say "happy ending". 

 

 

I agree that was very blatant in the way they wrote "Darkness On The Edge of Town", in addition to the exposition that Rumple gave to "catch up" viewers.  Another thing they did with the Fairyback which seemed less than subtle was how Rumple talked around the Queens' own personal reasons for villainy, which was clearly because they want to keep us in the dark about their backstories until each is revealed in 4B.  That was the main reason why they couldn't have each Queen say what they wanted.  This was similar to how they wrote Gold and Ingrid's scenes in 4A, where their conversations danced around stuff that they didn't want us viewers to know yet, but it would make no sense for the characters to talk like that.  So much of the writing is based around keeping back knowledge, that it becomes unnatural at times.  

Edited March 3, 2015 by Camera One

[Serena]

It was irritating in the latest episode, but not as irritating as when everyone started saying "monster" all the time in 4A.

[KAOS Agent]

This was similar to how they wrote Gold and Ingrid's scenes in 4A, where their conversations danced around stuff that they didn't want us viewers to know yet, but it would make no sense for the characters to talk like that.  So much of the writing is based around keeping back knowledge, that it becomes unnatural at times.

 

It's even worse when you go back on rewatch and notice that they're talking nonsense. They write all of this stuff to be mysterious and then when information comes out, it makes no sense. Like in 4A when Rumpel told Ingrid she better hope Emma doesn't remember. Why not? It was said to be suspenseful and interesting, but it was a complete lie. Ingrid actually fed her a ton of information including all of her school work and that card. Ingrid's whole plan revolved around them being a family, so of course she wanted to remind Emma of the good times. Plus, it's not like she wasn't capable of removing Emma's memories.  Writing scenes like this means I have zero trust in the writers being honest when writing character interactions. There's writing dialogue as being cryptic and then there's completely misleading statements. It's why I have no interest in dissecting the heart with the darkest potential. They'll have Rumpel say something to make it all scary and suspenseful and then it will ultimately be completely contradicted later in the story.

Edited March 3, 2015 by KAOS Agent

[BoPeeps]

I believe that they have simply lost their focus. Too many tales in too short a timespan. Too many characters to jam in to limited air time. When they took to posting You Tube videos of scenes that were deleted that furthered what they could not tell in primetime that signaled it was time to regroup, define, and eliminate what didn't further advance the core idea. Then the core idea became multiple core ideas that could be dispelled from week to week all in the name of *magic*

 

It bores and frustrates their audience.

 

Charm and spots of wit can only go so far.

[Shanna Marie]

All the villains want their happy endings.  I find it very distracting given its a time period we are familiar with from season 1.  They didn't talk that way.  The villains had very specific agendas and maybe they thought those agendas would make them happy but I never once heard them say "happy ending".

Didn't Regina say something like "now I will get my happy ending" when she cast the original curse? I think that much does go back to the beginning. But then that's a sign of poor world building because would they have really talked that way before they knew they were storybook characters? I mean, real people don't go around wondering why they're not getting a happy ending because they know their lives aren't over yet. They may gripe sarcastically about being issued a defective fairy godmother or not meeting their prince charming or having to kiss too many frogs without meeting a prince. They talk about getting what they want or being foiled in getting what they want. If someone does talk about getting their happy ending, they aren't serious about it. But these people thought they were just people living their lives until they were in Storybrooke and, aside from Regina, until the curse was broken, so they wouldn't have thought in terms of fitting into "villain" or "hero" categories or whether or not they were getting a storybook happy ending. Unless, I guess, that was the culture of their world. It did seem like it was just a Regina thing, though, so suddenly having all the villains whining about not being allowed to have a good ending because they're villains makes no sense at all.

 

The key to writing a good mystery or suspense is to leave behind two sets of clues. Mary Higgins Clark describes it as Hansel and Gretal theory. You leave behind stones for the real clues and bread crumbs that the birds will eat and make disappear for the false ones.

I like to think of it as Shawshank Redemption plotting (since that movie is one of the best examples I've seen) -- every event has two meanings, both of which are true, but only one is visible until you have the full context. If you cut off the ending to The Shawshank Redemption, you'd still have a decent movie about a falsely imprisoned man coming up with ways to survive, cope and even thrive in prison. Everything that happens makes sense in that context. And then there's the big twist reveal at the end, where you find out that while all that other stuff was actually happening, there was also something else going on, and there was this entire story taking place beneath the surface. It's a movie you almost have to see twice because it actually becomes an entirely different story once you know the information at the end.

 

That kind of writing is really, really hard to pull off. I don't think this show has really done it yet. They sort of did it in the first season as the backstory unspooled in the fairybacks, especially since they were out of order. Once you knew what Rumple was up to, it changed the way you saw all the things he was doing earlier in the season. The clues were there, but they were lacking meaning without the context. I'm just not sure how well they would have stood up if they'd never been given that extra context. If we didn't learn that Rumple wanted the curse cast and the Savior back door put in because it was the only way for him to find his son, he just looks like an insane jerk who likes messing with people. None of the story arcs have given that wonderful sense of the earth moving out from under you that you get from really well-done Shawshank plotting.

[FurryFury]

The last episode felt weird to me, so I had to rewind to the beginning and watch who's written it. Andrew Chambliss (a veteran) and somebody called Dana Horgan. This seems to be her second episode as a writer (she worked as story editor on more), with the first one being "The Apprentice", also with Chambliss. I didn't really like that episode, but still, at least there are some new-ish writers who seem okay, not just Scott Nimerfro (ugh).

[HoodlumSheep]

I'd comment, but I haven't seen this episode or the past 2. :( But if they wrote The Apprentice, then I'm sure I'll like their writing. I think they are slowly becoming favorites for the CS crowd, at least according to what I've seen on tumblr.

[sharky]

They seem to be quite busy too. Andrew and Dana wrote the episode we're getting in four weeks. Fingers crossed!

 

David Goodman is also a CS favorite -- or at least a Hook favorite. He wrote The Crocodile and The Jolly Roger for example and co-wrote Snow Drifts. Although I was checking out Wiki and it turns out that he wrote the two-part Smash the Mirror last half with a new writer, Jerome Schwartz, and the two of them also wrote the mess that was last week's episode so who knows what's going on with that.

 

Also, for as much as we give crap to Nimerfro -- and I think deservedly so -- he's only credited with co-writing two episodes this season.

 

Anyways, all of it can be found on this Wiki page of the Once episodes -- they include the writers for each one.

[Souris]

We got to talking about Jane Espenson in the spoilers thread. I do remember Jane said that Bleeding Through was her most difficult ep to write because they changed the story partway through while she was writing. She didn't give any more details. So that is likely part of why that ep was so bad.

[Serena]

I think Jane has the talent to write a good script and the awareness that character moments, not plot or shocking twists, make for a good episode. However, she's held back by her tendency to go over the top in the woobification (with Regina more than Rumple), to try too hard to have funny, witty dialogue (mostly because it's repetitive: she's gone back to the same joke about Rumpe seeing the future - your dress is snow white? You're eating roasted swan? - too much), and by the fact Shakespeare couldn't make "Eva is a secret telling life ruiner" good.

[LizaD]

I don't know. I just never got the hype over Jane E. and that's coming from someone who thinks Skin Deep and Miller's Daughter are 2 of the best episodes this show has and was a fan of Buffy and Spike. She might've written some of the best but she's also written some of the worst, with Bleeding Through counting as THE WORST, so it all kind of shakes out evenly in my book. I'm just kind of holding a deep grudge for the ruination of Cora.

 

 

to try too hard to have funny, witty dialogue

This. And it's not most of the time. It always comes off like "Look at me look at me, look at how funny and witty this is" complete with flashing neon signs and a whole orchestra for sound effects.

 

Ok looking over that wiki article and writers, here's the people who I think are superior to Jane E:  Liz Tigelaar for Snow Falls and I see she only wrote 1 other episode. The co-writer of Hat Trick, Vladimir Cvetko and that's his only credit.  Are we seeing a pattern here? No decent writer wants to stay on this show? Or did they get fired for having more than 2 brain cells? Of course the small sample size is a bit biased. The other writer for Hat Trick, David Goodman. He doesn't have any real standout episodes besides Hat Trick for me, but he also doesn't have a huge clunker on Jane's level either.

 

Also surprisingly or maybe not, I think A&E are better than she is too. Pilot, Heart is Lonely Hunter, Land without magic, Manhattan, Heart of Truest Believer, Ariel, Going Home, and Snow Queen were well written. I also don't think they've laid an egg as big as Jane. But the whole shebang is their brain child so maybe they should share the credit on all the clunkers too.

 

I think Jane is on par with Chambliss and Goldberg the writers of Heart of Darkness. I'll say she's better than the rest.

Edited March 24, 2015 by LizaD

[tennisgurl]

I think A&E are much better writers than they are show runners. They have proven that they can come up with great ideas, and can write some solid episodes. Their problem seem to be that they can come up with great ideas and individual episodes, but have trouble with follow through, and really bringing those episodes together in a cohesive way. I have always thought that good show runners are creative, but are also structured and goal oriented. A&E are creative, without the structure show runners need. 

[HoodlumSheep]

I think A&E are good writers too. The episodes they wrote for Wonderland were good. They wrote "Down the Rabbit Hole" (the pilot), which was decent, if a lil' on the bland side (I enjoyed it though). I thought "Home" was an excellently written episode, and the finale, "And They Lived..." Had me balling. It was pretty much perfect.

Now I'm wishing that they had brought over some of the Wonderland writers like Katie Wech, who wrote two of my favorite Wonderland episodes. :(

[Zuleikha]

I don't think you can compare a writer who's only written 1 or 2 episodes to a regular writer who's written 18. Everyone's going to have some misses at that number (I just took a look, and I do believe all the double-digit writers have misses). Plus, writers who write one or two are usually not staff writers. They're writing something they've pitched that they're super excited about whereas the staff writers have to keep the episodes flowing. 

[LizaD]

Yeah I was being facetious with those 2 writers hence the specific mention of "small sample size" and "biased." Regardless my point is just that Jane E. in my opinion is mediocre and overrated. The other point is every writers, with a lot of epsiodes under their belt, has misses or bad episodes but her bad episodes are BAD.

Edited March 24, 2015 by LizaD

[RadioGirl27]

I don't know if this is the right place to put this, or it should be in the morality thread, but I think the writers has put themselves (again) in a really bad place, morally speaking, with the August/Pinocchio thing. If they keep August they are killing Pinocchio, because after more than a year being a kid and living with his father, he is not the August we knew anymore. But if they bring back Pinocchio, they are killing August (again). And, either way, Marco looses. So, maybe it's just me, but I don't like it. It's another example of the writers doesn't thinking about what they are showing other than "wouldn't it be cool if we...".

Edited March 26, 2015 by RadioGirl27

[FurryFury]

I think they'll do the easy thing and make August go through the transformation voluntarily. But I agree, this is a shitty situation that should be dealt with more nuance that it's usual for this show and writers. Not to mention, I unexpectedly liked August in the latest ep, so I wouldn't exactly be against seeing more of him over, say, Robin or 

Lily

or, really, Maleficent (Cruella can stay and recur once in a blue moon).

[daxx]

Interesting read about the way Regina's redemption arc is being written.

http://kahlansamnells.tumblr.com/post/112158117661/as-someone-who-used-to-adore-regina-and-who

[Zuleikha]

I wish I had more time in my life to write the alternate POV. That's not sarcastic. I have an article in my head about the power of Regina's redemption arc that I'd like to get out, but I haven't had a good chance to sit down and comb through the transcripts to fact check my memory. 

[Curio]

That's what the weekends are for, Zuleikha! I'd actually be very curious to read your counter argument, because I've been genuinely trying to view Regina's character as objectively as possible, but I haven't read any pro-Regina arguments that have been logical, factual, or not dripping with SQ bias that have made me change my mind about her character right now. The writers have managed to take a character I surprisingly enjoyed in 3A, tolerated in 3B, to downright loathing in Season 4.

 

Although, I feel like any conversations or counter arguments about that article should relocate to the Regina thread. 

Edited March 27, 2015 by Curio