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

[Artsda]

This is cool, good tie in.

‏@AdamHorowitzLA

Hey #ONCERS! Wanna visit Mr. Gold's Shop? It's now on display at Disney Hollywood Studios in Florida! Stop by!

[Souris]

I've heard nothing but bad things about Julie Plec's writing & TVD fandom, but she laid out some truth bombs on Twitter tonight. Adam & Jane even tweeted in support about what she said.

[Serena]

Julie Plec's shows aren't gonna win any Emmys, but she's 100% right on this. Also... unpopular opinion, but people exagerate how awful her writing is because they're pissed their fave ship/characters aren't happening, IMHO. 

 

I usually like Katrina, but WTF? Why is she spreading those kinds of rumors? Does she miss the attention she gets during filming? JMO confirmed they're going to CC like a month ago.

[YaddaYadda]

Does she miss the attention she gets during filming?

 

I think you just answered your own question.  And even if they didn't go to ComiCon, how is that the end of the world?  I find these people contribute a great deal to the pearl clutching and the whole I don't wanna cause a panic but...

 

Go away!

[sharky]

Taking my response to the fandom thread

[Shanna Marie]

I'm still trying to understand the irrational level of Mary Suing that goes on with Regina because this might be the most egregious case I've ever seen. It's pretty common in shows, particularly those of a sf/fantasy bent, for there to be the "brilliant, but misunderstood" and (often) not conventionally attractive male character who's an obvious writer insert, and then at some point in the show's history, an actress who's iconic for another genre role (in other words, the writer's crush object) to be added to the cast as a love interest for the writer's stand-in, and then logic flies out the window in terms of her character's role on the show and credentials (quite frequently playing a scientist or medical doctor too young to have actually made it through the education and training to credibly be in the position her character's in -- you may be brilliant and zip through college, but residencies are about time, and you don't test out of them) and her attraction to the writer stand-in.

 

I've also seen plenty of cases of the writers' pet character who gets all the things, who is loved by all other characters, and who is always the "good guy" in any conflict, regardless of her actual behavior (often played by an actress the male writers are in love with). But this may be the first case I've seen in which the pet character is actually and literally the worst human being on the show, who has killed hundreds, sometimes just for fun, and destroyed an entire civilization because she wants revenge on someone who didn't actually wrong her. And although the writing looks like they fell in love with her in season one and started changing the way they depicted her in season two in the present, instead of really whitewashing her past deeds to make her present situation make more sense, they got worse. That's when they added the slaughter of villages and added stuff like Snow showing her mercy and freeing her, which makes the curse look even worse. I've seen villain-type characters be turned into heroes, but they're usually put through the wringer and have to prove themselves. I've never seen such a bad character suddenly be treated as a good person by her former victims, without remorse or apology on her part, without any amends being made, and without any attempt to clean up her past by the writers. That's the part that doesn't make sense. They keep making her past worse even as they keep telling us how wonderful she is in the present.

 

Which makes me want to analyze the writers -- is she fantasy love object to them? Self-insert? Is there fear of the fans? Is that fan base actually that large in numbers or just more vocal and obnoxious about it? I just don't see how anyone can look at the way they write for her and think this is good writing because the disconnects are so huge. It would be good for the character to make her have to struggle and truly work for things and get some self awareness, so I don't understand why they're just dropping everything in her lap, when that makes her story less interesting. In giving Regina all the things -- the instant forgiveness, the pixie-dust lover, the instant baby without stretch marks -- they're actually cheating the character and the actress who plays her.

[Katherine]

I think a lot of it is fear of fan response. All characters/pairings have passionate fans, but from what I've seen on Twitter, Evil Regals are some of the more vocal ones. I think another big part of it is that Adam and Eddy love the idea that no character is entirely a hero or entirely a villain. Everyone has shades of grey, blah blah. From what I've read in their interviews, I kind of get the impression that they think this is a really original concept. IMO, however, this has been the trend in shows and movies for a long time now--Once certainly isn't groundbreaking in that regard. Honestly, I'm starting to miss stories where the heroes are heroes and the villains are villains. Yes, everyone has flaws, but that doesn't mean everyone is a villain.

[KAOS Agent]

The summer reading program at my local library has posters up featuring the tagline, "Every hero has a story." I thought of the Once writers and wished that they could see that. Sometimes, a hero's story can be just as interesting as a villain's. It would be nice to see a story where they're not tearing down the heroes but instead letting them have a fun adventurous story of their own.

[Camera One]

I was watching the bonus materials on the Season 3 "Lost" DVD, and A&E popped up with an interview-featurette for the episode "D.O.C.", which was about Sun, a supporting character.  For the first time in a long time, I was able to listen to their words without rolling my eyes.  They did a good job with a character-driven story in that episode, with good dialogue and a nice mix of suspense and emotional moments.  It's kinda sad since I actually did enjoy hearing their take on "Lost" for their episodes back in the day.  I wish they would be able to write like that for the "boring" characters on "Once".

Edited June 14, 2015 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

I think a lot of it is fear of fan response. All characters/pairings have passionate fans, but from what I've seen on Twitter, Evil Regals are some of the more vocal ones.

On the other hand, there's the fact that the ratings take a nosedive when there's a Regina-focused arc, and their biggest drop in viewership came during the phase when the Regina Sue stuff really kicked in. You'd think that would be a sign.

 

I think another big part of it is that Adam and Eddy love the idea that no character is entirely a hero or entirely a villain. Everyone has shades of grey, blah blah.

The problem is, that's not what they're really showing. This series is actually less grey than a lot of the fairy tale source material, or a lot of traditional black/white storytelling. The heroes aren't even able to express anger about having been genuinely wronged without it being a danger sign of darkness, and they can't kill someone who's a threat to the entire town without it tainting their heart and without getting a lecture on "heroes don't kill." Even the white-hatted heroes of the old Westerns were allowed to kill the bad guys to save the town. Meanwhile, Regina has done far more evil than any fairy tale villain, and it takes a lot more than showing her crying when she doesn't get her way for her to be a "complex" character or to show her as not being entirely a villain because of shades of grey. If what they wanted was to show complexity and shades of grey, then they shouldn't have taken her as far as mass slaughter and they should have given her a more rational reason for her vendetta. Regina isn't grey so much as she has a toggle switch and is either all bad or so good she's a saint.

 

I think that in the first couple of seasons, Rumple was a good "grey" villain because even while he was doing some awful things, he had a non-evil reason for doing them. He had a good goal but was going about it in a bad way, and he was a weak person who became a bully when he got power. But then they went off the deep end with him and he lost all his nuance. Hook is probably their best character who lives in the "grey" realm. When he was a villain, he had a genuine grievance. He'd been wronged horribly and had no hope of getting justice, but in trying to get vengeance he did some awful things to innocent people. Now he's seen the error of his ways and is trying to change, but he has a lot of bad habits and mindsets that make the transition back to good challenging for him (since he doesn't have Regina's toggle switch). And I get the feeling he could still be utterly ruthless if he felt he needed to be to save someone he cares about. He's no longer a villain, but he's not really a hero.

 

And it takes more than "they did this one thing back when" to make a good grey hero. Just human frailty works. No "heroes don't kill" speeches. Let them do what they feel they need to do, and then let them figure out whether it was worth it or whether they can live with it. Snow and Charming fought a war to take over two kingdoms. Delve into that if you want to make them grey. I somehow doubt they were fighting that war with Nerf arrows and swords.

[Actionmage]

I don't understand why the pretty fun, and game, supporting cast is ignored when they can be used to help illustrate why Snow and David are heroic and Regina and Rumple villainous. 

 

As in, when Snow had her depression after Cora's death. Yes, Megan Ory was unavailable, but do you think Granny would let Snow sit around and stew in that dark emotion? Not me. Granny'd kick/shoo/stare down Rumple to get him out of the room/hovel long enough to speak plainly to Snow. Then maybe that would have prompted a bit of clarification as to why Snow felt so horrible despite it being one of the less horrible outcomes.

 

Or, if Regina, at anytime, followed up with Archie over anything-- Henry's kidnapping, how Rumple being a blood relative to Henry made her feel, how the fact of Zelena and her horrible past, her emotions over Robin & Marian & Roland, and/or the complicated relationship she has with Maleficent.  Sessions with Archie would be perfect because a) he's supposed to keep the sessions confidential, b) we might get a little more clarity on Regina's mindset on some issues and c) it sets up tensions between how Regina acts with "the peasants" and how she really feels about things. The only flaw I can see is that Regina, as written, only thinks about things the writers need her to think about in any episode.

 

The "hilarious" haranguing of Snow to accept the mayorship because she cast the second curse?  How about Snow was largely absent because she was actually butt-in-chair leading her subjects, as she was raised to do?  Then I might buy a new mother and Mayor being too pooped to notice her firstborn having everyone huddled around her not-normally pale daughter.  Having all the princesses there to help run Storybrooke  could be a hoot, with all the "Well, in my kingdom we did it this way..." type of bickering-into-compromise-in-order-to-aid-the-town we'd get to see if Snow is better off as Bandit Snow or if she's pretty good with Queen Snow stuff too. ( Also? How the Bandit helps inform the Queen's decisions.)  But that would probably fall into dishwashing, aka too boring.

 

When outside villains show up and Cruella's driving as she does, have the Dwarves or Archie or Granny say something to Cruella. Better yet, to show any growth in Regina, have the characters complain to Regina about Cruella menacing the town and Regina agree! That the characters are so scared of the newcomers that they go to Regina is a sign of how badass the new villain is or how accepted Regina is becoming.   

 

When some Big Bad comes to town, have the town divided over who they prefer to face the Big Bad-- Snow, Regina or Emma. They can even have the thing like when it was Rumple or Cora.   But a fourth person/solution happens and everyone eats Regina's lasagna ( not a euphemism) !

 

But we have pretty much what Serena pointed out, like most of us know.  For  such a potentially rich world of characters to explore, the world on-screen is relatively tiny and is getting smaller, not larger.  The Andy Griffith Show, Picket Fences, Law & Order, Parks & Recreation and Bones all have interesting secondary players who help pick up the narrative slack when the weekly stuff is thin ( by design or status as a long-running show.)  A&E are, imo, shooting themselves in the foot by not broadening the scope of the cast, not the people in it.

 

"Every hero has a story."

 

Even if this is embroidered on a pillow in A&E's office, they are still missing the point this has, as we saw in the season finale: If Regina is to end up a hero, we have to see her work towards that status. Not have it given to her by her son, or  right after she helped avert a disaster that would have destroyed her as well as the town.

[Camera One]

Simple answer is they have no interest in Granny, Archie or any of the "good" supporting characters.  They have no interest in Snow.  These characters are simply props for others, or used as time fillers.  I simply do not understand how as writers, they can justify coming up with a subplot like Snow becoming mayor and juggling parenthood in 4A, and simply drop both of those with no explanation or reason in the back half.  Is there no urge to ensure there is any continuity of characterization?  

[KingOfHearts]

It strikes me that A&E do know how to write interesting character stories. They set them up all the freaking time. Henry working for Rumple, Regina getting a half-sister, Emma being adopted by the Snow Queen... it all just writes itself. And in S1, they actually explored emotions. It's not like the only thing they know is Saturday morning cartoons. The ADD mentality is so obvious it's sad.

[BoPeeps]

They are full of creative plots. The follow through is sorely lacking. They press us all to have hope, but it is a wasted hope if that refers to us getting detailed character support.

[Shanna Marie]

What would really help the show is if this writing team had "adult supervision." They really are creative and have some great ideas and create great characters, but they need some kind of more rational balance, someone to rein them in or force them to develop their ideas instead of running off half-cocked. They need a real showrunner to say stuff like, "That's a great idea, but let's think it through. Where do you see it going?" or "Do we really need to bring in all three Queens of Darkness for this arc?" or "But what would Will do in Storybrooke?" More focus and more development would really improve all their ideas and make the most of their creativity.

[RadioGirl27]

I see A&E as unsupervised kids in a toy store, running around and buying as much new toys as they can, without thinking that they already have way too many.

They lack focus and planning, and Socha's situation is an example of this.

Edited June 17, 2015 by RadioGirl27

[Mathius]

Not an unfair comparison to make, seeing as they've flat-out made it themselves sometimes.

[Rumsy4]

I'm rewatching LOST currently. LOST had an ensemble cast, much like OUAT. And as A&E were writers, it's hard not to make comparisons.

I love the way the writers made time for kitchen sink conversations and it was not Plot!Plot!Plot! all the time. None of the core cast stood around like props while two characters carried the scene. Besides, characters were given realistic dialogue based on their place of origin/ethnicity. For example, Sayid uses kilometers instead of miles as a unit of measurement. So, there are no anachronistic dialogues like Elsa knowing about dating and Captain Hook making jokes about Snow White and Prince Charming. The flashbacks were pretty evenly distributed between the characters in LOST, and they got off the formula when it stopped working. It's sad A&E didn't carry that attention to detail with them in writing for ONCE.

[KingOfHearts]

https://twitter.com/AdamHorowitzLA/status/611334955734429696

 

They're currently writing 5x01. Does anyone know what "AHEK" means at the end of the file name?

 

Edit: Just figured it out. Adam Horowitz, Eddie Kitsis. My urge to recognize abbreviations and intialisms got the best of me. I guess this post isn't a total loss since we now know what they're up to in production.

Edited June 18, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[orza]

Adam Horowitz Eddy Kitsis

[Curio]

I know they're a writing team, but I'd be interested to see an individual episode script from Adam and Eddy separately. Writing a solo episode, I could get a better sense of which one has more bias towards writing certain characters more than others, or if one of them has a tendency to write more plot exposition versus casual dialogue.

[Katherine]

I could be wrong but I get the feeling that Adam is more prone to trying to accommodate all sections of the fandom, maybe because he's the one who interacts with them on Twitter.  I think Eddy is a little more blunt with fans - like his Swan Queen comments at Comic Con a couple of years ago.  However, in interviews it's usually Eddy's comments that annoy me most (for example, his comment about not being able to give CS fans 40 minutes of kissing).  IMO sometimes he comes across as a bit condescending or arrogant or something - I can't quite put my finger on it.  Again, I could be totally wrong - interviews aren't the best way to get an impression of someone.  As for the show's Plot!Plot!Plot! style, I suspect that comes from both Adam and Eddy.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Katherine

[Jul 68]

I posted this on the Regina thread, but then realized that it may be better suited here and can't get it to delete from my tablet.

I am re-watching S1E4 The Price of Gold and nearly choked when I heard Regina say this to Emma at the 7:02 mark: "People don't change. They only fool themselves into believing they can."

[KingOfHearts]

 

I am re-watching S1E4 The Price of Gold and nearly choked when I heard Regina say this to Emma at the 7:02 mark: "People don't change. They only fool themselves into believing they can."

Rumple: "No matter where you go in time, one thing will never change - who you are. That is a fate no one can escape."

[KingOfHearts]

https://twitter.com/AdamHorowitzLA/status/613093530701967360

 

They've finished the first draft of 5x01, it looks like.

[Faemonic]

About Regina Mills the canon Mary Sue? I found the Secrets of Storybrooke on YouTube, because I have a hatecrush on this show and didn't watch 4B except for the Hook episode and now that Emma's the Dark One I might tune into season 5.

 

But anyway, that special mentioned how The Evil Queen was the inspiration. I sort of gathered that, but the way one of AHEK put it, that the inspiration was how frustrating it must be for The Evil Queen. Regina wasn't an idea of a character to twist ("What If the Evil Queen from Snow White still had something up her sleeve after the Happy Ever After scene?), she was an emotional core that the showrunners anchored to (The Evil Queen must be so frustrated, let's extend the story to help her.)

 

This explains a lot to me about the creative process. The entire Season One wasn't a mirror of the narrative structure of The Return of The King (Frodo=Emma, Sam=Henry, Gollum=Real!Life, plot=Fall Of the Evil Overlord) but a mirror of the narrative structure of Cinderella. Storybrooke was Reginarella's ball, and Emma/Henry were the clock striking midnight. Everybody's backstories were like the people who tried on Cinderella's shoes, but the story was always going to be Regina's all along! Regina's redemption was fast because it was never a redemption story but fairy tale rags to riches disguised as redemption.

 

It's like in Game Of Thrones where Jon Snow might be the Song of Ice and Fire so the story was about him all along and I look at Kit Harrington's adorably gormless expression and go, "Central character of an epic? Him? Seriously?"

 

And then there's the Secrets of Storybrooke segment where they show the scene from the series, of all the dwarves going off to party at Granny's because Charming got woken up by Snow White's kiss of True Love. It was overlaid with a segment from the script where it describes, "Hold the camera on Regina as they leave" and a voiceover from the showrunners about "That's how we knew we were successful! When the audience felt bad for Regina! Everybody goes off without her, and she's done all these terrible things, but the audience thinks, 'How dare they not invite her, poor Regina'!"

 

But...the script was structured so that the audience was supposed to say "poor Regina". The camerawork was supposed to get the audience to say "poor Regina". You can't do a victory dance on audience reaction alone, that's like only paying attention to the audience reaction that you wanted, which I guess is what a target audience is but that's like Texan Sharpshooter Fallacy targeting of audience.

 

That specific scene might have worked on me, if they'd kept it balanced against Regina not being the life of the party being a fact, but when they try it again on like Regina crying about not being able to kidnap Owen, my reaction was, "Wait but why is the camera on Regina instead of these characters we just met who I already feel way sorrier for than Regina?"

[Curio]

But...the script was structured so that the audience was supposed to say "poor Regina". The camerawork was supposed to get the audience to say "poor Regina". You can't do a victory dance on audience reaction alone, that's like only paying attention to the audience reaction that you wanted, which I guess is what a target audience is but that's like Texan Sharpshooter Fallacy targeting of audience.

 

You know what's funny—before I joined the Once online fandom (I watched the show since the beginning, but didn't really pay attention to the online fandom until the beginning of Season 3), I had no idea Regina was a popular character. In fact, I was nearly 100% certain she'd be that one character everyone online was hoping would get killed off. So I definitely did not read that infamous lasagne scene the way Adam and Eddy wanted me to read it. I just remember watching it and thinking, "Well, no shit they didn't invite you, Regina. Are you insane?"

 

And then I joined the online fandom and got the double-whammy of realizing not only was Regina somehow a super popular character, but the creators intended for that scene to be all about poor Regina and how she got left out of the party by the meanie-weenie "good guys." I suppose that should have been the first red flag that I should expect subpar writing from that point forward, and yet...here I am still addicted to this stupid show.

 

So, sorry, Adam and Eddy. I know you felt like it was a "win" when you got a sad response out of some of your audience to that lasagne scene, but I think there's also a good portion who totally missed what you were serving (pun intended?).

[daxx]

I never felt sorry for Regina either, I felt it was a case of making your bed and sleeping in it. Show some remorse, etc before I can empathize.

[KingOfHearts]

I actually watched Season 2 before Season 1, so I felt sorry for Regina in that scene because I had not witnessed all her terror in S1 or 2B. If you watch only 2A, Regina does appear to be a misunderstood character trying to make it work. Gloves are off with the rest of the show, though.

[Shanna Marie]

That "oh, poor Regina didn't get invited her victims' first ever family dinner together" moment enraged me to the point that I almost gave up the show, right there. I could feel the waves of emotional manipulation coming off the screen, and I hate being able to tell that I'm being emotionally manipulated, especially when the manipulation goes against all logic. There is no good reason to feel sorry for Regina at that point. It really was the first time for Emma and her parents to ever be together as a family because of Regina's actions. I might have had a slight amount of sympathy if there had been any sense that Regina was aware of this, if she was feeling bad because she realized the full impact of what she'd done. But her having that "why didn't they invite me?" moment made me hate her even more. I know they brag about that moment as showing that they've written a complex villain, but in my dictionary, "crying" is not a synonym for "complex," and that's all they did there, show her crying and alone and focus on her rather than on her victims finally getting some happiness together.

[KingOfHearts]

Reply to OUAT vs. GoT discussion in Other Fairy Tales thread:

 

But I think that's the problem with Once. The first season didn't have decades of book canon to fall back on so that they wouldn't fall back on the TV Writing tapdance...but season one still subverted so many expectations in such an enjoyable and compelling way. The following season? It's like their novelist consultant pulled out, except that Once never had one.

Season 1's concept had been in the planning stages even before Lost premiered in 2004. They had more than seven years to work on it. Now they fly by the seat of their pants with every new reason, and in interviews it's pretty clear they have absolutely no long-term planning whatsoever. The writers have freely admitted they only plan seasons as they arise. I do wish Once was a book series like GoT, where they could get stories from. Actually - they have the entire Disney universe to tap into. They burn through it so fast though that they're even running out of ideas from there. Most of their entirely original stories have been crap since S2.

 

I'm not sure why they haven't gone into some of the more obscure fairy tales. Sometimes it's like they rely on big names to get them viewers over actual good story. I bet you if the writing was good, people would still watch no matter how unknown the fairy tales were. (In addition to the more iconic ones that have already been established.)

Edited June 28, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

They had a multitude of things from Oz to draw from, and they didn't use it.  Ditto for Neverland/Peter Pan, to a lesser degree.  The only time they truly delved into the source material for an extended amount of time was with "Frozen", and that was pretty much forced from Disney.  And they did a good job with it.  Which makes it all the more heartbreaking that so much potential is thrown out.  I mean, look at Maleficent/Sleeping Beauty and the possible potential in 4B, and that's not even speaking of the Little Mermaid mythology or Cruella de vil.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Camera One

[Souris]

I agree, but after having seen the finale, I get why they did what they did.  It was stupid, but they were going to kill him off in the AU and they decided to give her a reaction to that and that her efforts to get out of the AU weren't just about going back to their reality but also about getting him back.  

 

But we don't know whether that aspect of the finale was planned from the start. It's also possible they added the aspect of Hook dying to try to "make up" for their complete lack of payoff in the heart arc.

Either way, they're terrible writers. The options are they effed up the heart arc's payoff so badly they had to write a makeup plot later, or they deliberately withheld from viewers something they'd narratively "promised." Neither recommends them.

[Camera One]

Remember these writers work backwards.  They needed Emma to finally say "I love you" right before she became "lost" to Hook.  Something big needed to trigger that.  What's bigger than Hook sacrificing his life in the AU?  

 

Remember when they had Emma finally call Snow and Charming "Mom" and "Dad" after she saw Snow get fireballed in the previous season finale, but that fireballing affected absolutely nothing else about how Emma saw Regina, or how she saw her parents in their element, etc.? Most actions have a single desired effect of whatever the writers wanted to do, and that's it.  Finito.    

 

I wouldn't be surprised if they had the scene of Emma holding a gun to Lily's head and Regina talking her back from it before they worked through the specifics.  

[Shanna Marie]

I had a thought that came up on the mental rabbit trail in thinking about which DVD commentaries there ought to be, and maybe it explains some of the very uneven writing, where it seems like for some characters they make total sense and for others they lose their minds.

 

It sounds like some of the writers specialize in certain characters -- like Jane E. is the go-to for Rumple and David Goodman seems to be the Hook guy, given that he tends to write those episodes and usually partners with Colin on DVD commentary. I wonder if that extends, informally or formally, to discussions in the writers' room, where these people are more likely to chime up about "their" characters' story lines in a big-picture sense and in how they play out in individual episodes, even when written by other people. They also tend to get their characters' key episodes that drive their story arcs.

 

If that's the case, then it could explain the differences. If Goodman, for instance, loves Hook as a character to write for but isn't treating him as his personal Mary Sue, then he might be more likely to suggest that Hook might be feeling bad about something he's done in the past (I think all of his Hook episodes center around Hook feeling bad for something he's done) and might need to atone, and that's why his redemption arc makes sense. While I have issues with the way the relationship between Rumple and Belle plays out, mostly from Belle's perspective, Jane E. is good about balancing Rumple's humanity with his evil, and he generally isn't whitewashed too much. But A&E seem to be the biggest Regina advocates, and they do seem to either Mary Sue her or are in love with her, or at the very least have no objectivity about her, so they just want her to have all the things, right now. When the bosses are the ones focusing on a character, the rest of the staff can't very well chime in and say, "But, uh, what about the bad things she's done? Shouldn't she feel bad?" They don't stop the others from doing their characters the right way (unless it interferes with Regina), but they're running around unchecked with Regina.

 

Is there an Emma writer? I can't think of one off the top of my head who really seems to focus on Emma, and that might mean part of the problem with her is that she doesn't have anyone in the writers' room arguing on her behalf. As a supposedly main character, she might fall under A&E, but they're too focused on Regina, and that might explain why all of Emma's story lines (other than her relationship with Hook) end up fizzling, with Regina swooping in to be the hero.

[Serena]

But we don't know whether that aspect of the finale was planned from the start. It's also possible they added the aspect of Hook dying to try to "make up" for their complete lack of payoff in the heart arc.

I'm pretty sure they planned their totally awesome "movie event" finale before they planned anything else about all of S4. That's the reason we got that insane, nonsensical Operation Mongoose arc starting from the premiere.

[Joanh23]

hi, I'm curious do people think that A&E always planned on turning Emma into the Dark One or was it something they came up with when planning S4 - I'm leaning towards thinking they always planned on doing it, but I then again I wouldn't be surprised if they only thought of it in S4…..

[YaddaYadda]

I think it was always planned.

 

ETA - I think that they chose to do it now instead of towards the end of the series because they might be worried the show could get cancelled? 

Edited July 8, 2015 by YaddaYadda

[Curio]

I've always thought they had a great story arc in their heads for Season 1, but as Season 2 shows, I think they've just been making things up as they go along ever since. We probably will never know the answer (unless a journalist actually asks Adam & Eddy good questions during Comic-Con), but I'm going to lean towards #DarkSwan being a more recent idea.

[Serena]

I think they probably had it planned since the beginning of season 4, but I don't know about before that.

[Rumsy4]

The "hero" being tempted by Darkness is such a recognizable trope that I feel A&E had this idea for a while. But their plans probably didn't solidify until S3/S4. They have been expanding on the DO mythology since S3B at least.

[Shanna Marie]

I think they probably had it planned since the beginning of season 4, but I don't know about before that.

Being cynical and snarky, I suspect that it dates back to when the pivotal moment at the end of the 3B arc got prematurely released and the Internet went nuts because of Regina pulling white magic out of her ass, while A&E pretended like the problem with it was that it was "unfinished" (although it was exactly what was aired). They couldn't believe that not everyone saw Regina as a full-on hero capable of light magic or that anyone would expect Emma to actually be the hero, so they set out to create an arc that would show us and make Regina and Emma truly equal, which required Emma to be evil and Regina to be the good guy. After this, then we won't be able to point to Regina's bad deeds as evidence that Emma is a better person. Never mind that Emma took this on willingly as a sacrifice and Regina's bad deeds were selfish.

[Serena]

The fact that that scene was released early and that totally shat on A&E's plans to blow our minds with their incredible "Regina has white magic" twist is the only redeeming feature of that episode.

But actually, I've noticed that the fact that Regina had white magic wasn't mentioned once in S4 (please correct me if I'm wrong). So I think they realized how totally crazy it was.

[Rumsy4]

She used White Magic to defeat the ice monster Elsa made, but at no point after that in S4.

[Faemonic]

they set out to create an arc that would show us and make Regina and Emma truly equal, which required Emma to be evil and Regina to be the good guy. After this, then we won't be able to point to Regina's bad deeds as evidence that Emma is a better person. Never mind that Emma took this on willingly as a sacrifice and Regina's bad deeds were selfish.

The header of this thread about the writers has never been truer, I think. I guess Emma's downfall could be traced to a fatal flaw in her character if I squint, and the thing (we're told, by the writers, not onscreen) about the Dark One curse is that it overloads people with power while robbing them of their inhibitions. But the real reason Emma's gone dark is (dark) Magic, which might just be another word for Plot.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Faemonic

[Curio]

She used White Magic to defeat the ice monster Elsa made, but at no point after that in S4.

 

Wait, are you talking about Regina or Emma?

 

But actually, I've noticed that the fact that Regina had white magic wasn't mentioned once in S4 (please correct me if I'm wrong). So I think they realized how totally crazy it was.

For how "big" of a plot twist that was in Season 3, I'm amazed they never mentioned it once in Season 4. The writers are either back-pedaling or purposely keeping that detail under wraps until they need Regina to conveniently pull white magic out of thin air again in the future for "plot" reasons.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Curio

[Camera One]

The writers are either back-pedaling or purposely keeping that detail under wraps until they need Regina to conveniently pull white magic out of thin air again in the future for "plot" reasons.

 

When 4A started, the writers had shifted to having the viewer wonder if Regina was going to go bad.  So essentially, the white magic stuff became a moot point.  It's almost like every time they have those "brainstorming" sessions for the next half-season, they only take the major cliffhangers of the previous arc finale to plot out the next arc.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Camera One

[YaddaYadda]

I didn't get Regina using light magic to defeat the ice monster.  She exploded it from the inside.  I also thought the light magic was a one time thing type of deal.

[Rumsy4]

I've been rewatching LOST recently (first time since the show ended). I'm concurrently listening to the official LOST podcast with Damon and Carlton. Occasionally they bring up other LOST writers like Eddy and Adam in discussing the creative process. One thing that stood out was Carlton stating at various times that Eddy was apparently very interested in telling the story of the background characters--like Neil Frogurt, Montand, and other redshirts. It sounded like Darlton kept vetoing his ideas. Eddy finally got his wish about Frogurt when he wrote a mobisode on him. On a side note, A&E also wrote the episode Expose with the infamous Nikki and Paulo.

 

I think this explains a lot about the digressive nature and excessive focus on guest characters in Once Upon a Time. I think most writers do flesh out secondary characters in their heads. For instance, Rowling had reams of backstory on secondary and minor characters in the Harry Potter-verse, but most of that info rarely made it into the books, because she knew the importance of staying focussed on the main characters. That's why even her background characters seemed fully fleshed out, even if we only got small glimpses of them. Unfortunately for A&E, in focussing half-season arcs on characters we will never see again, they waste precious screen time that would be better spent on the main characters. If A&E had been at the helm of LOST, I can't help feeling that the majority of the flashbacks would have been centered on the conflict between Charles Widmore and Ben Linus; Season 4, 5, and 6 would have focussed respectively on Daniel Faraday; Roger Linus, and Zoe (does anyone even remember her? Yeah--I thought not); and Locke would be devoting the afterlife to helping Ben get his Happy Ending. 

 

Wait, are you talking about Regina or Emma?

 

I was talking about Regina. 

 

I didn't get Regina using light magic to defeat the ice monster.  She exploded it from the inside. 

 

I stand corrected. That makes Regina's Light Magic use in 3B even more of a WTF moment. Whatever, writers...

Edited July 11, 2015 by Rumsy4

[KingOfHearts]

 

On a side note, A&E also wrote the episode Expose with the infamous Nikki and Paulo.

Now that you mention it, that episode did feel very Once-ish. It was "OMG TWIST!" throughout, the story was silly and ridiculous, it focused on characters nobody cared about, and it did absolutely nothing to develop the overall plot. I didn't hate the episode, in fact I thought it was a great way to deal with two unwanted characters. It was a clever, fun little one-off. But imagine if every single episode had the same vibe... that would be something else.

 

A&E wrote the episode where Sun had a daughter, Ji Yeon. I only mention it because it was another baby that the show subsequently stopped caring about. They also did Fire+Water, which started the "evil Charlie" arc that ended as quickly as it began. Claire and Charlie fixed their issues with a kiss, if I remember correctly. (Even though he almost drowned her baby.) Does this sound familiar to anyone on here yet?

Edited July 11, 2015 by KingOfHearts