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

[Camera One]

It's interesting that A&E were so interested in exploring random background and guest characters on "Lost", yet past Season 1, they seem to have little to no interest in exploring Granny, Red, Grumpy, Blue, Gepetto, etc. 

Edited July 11, 2015 by Camera One

[YaddaYadda]

The difference between Lost and Once is that they didn't create Lost, they were just two writers on it who adhered to the vision of someone else.

[Curio]

Sorry, but I just had to translate this part of a Comic-Con interview Adam & Eddy did. It really gives insight into what they believe is the priority of their show, and how willing they are to drop a story arc if it isn't related to Regina. The interviewer asked if we'd get any resolution to Will's introduction to Storybrooke in Season 5 (I don't consider this a spoiler):

Eddy: Well, he...you know...I will say this: Are we going to get to it this year? You know, we'd like to tell you, but we did hint to it last year. It seemed like he was brought back from uh...Wonderland, or Victoria, for something that...
Adam: There is...
Eddy: There seemed like a, uh...
Adam: For fans of Will and of Wonderland, there is more we want to tell about his relationship with, with, uh...
Eddy: Anastasia.
Adam: Anastasia, the Red Queen. And um, and uh, and also how he wound up in Storybrooke and all that. Hopefully we'll be able to get to some of that this year. We love Michael Socha.
Eddy: Love Socha. Love everything. It's just, you know, there's just so many...there's just so many people that it's like, it's sometimes hard to do that story and sacrifice Regina's story. That's just showbiz.

I apologize to Adam & Eddy for including every little 'uh' and 'you know,' but it really emphasizes how they were stumbling over the question. The part that kills me is that Eddy talks about the show having so many people like it's a burden on them, but do they not realize they can control the amount of characters in their universe? Don't whine about something when you have complete control over the story. Sure, Disney and ABC probably encourage them to introduce more characters for branding purposes, but I highly doubt any executive sat them down and forced them to introduce Ursula, Cruella, Maleficient, The Author, and Zelena all in one half season.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Curio

[Camera One]

Oh LOL, that was hilarious and revealing.  There's just so many people, it's like, let's add another boatload this upcoming season.  Smart of Adam to just revert back to LOVE Socha at the end.  

[RadioGirl27]

you know, there's just so many...there's just so many people that it's like, it's sometimes hard to do that story and sacrifice Regina's story.That's just showbiz.

LOL!

And this is why we would never have a flashback about Hook's childhood. Every time I see a post about it here or in Tumblr, I'm going to answer with this quote.

[OnceUponAJen]

LOL!

And this is why we would never have a flashback about Hook's childhood. Every time I see a post about it here or in Tumblr, I'm going to answer with this quote.

I love this quote, because it sounds like, "Oh my God there's so much we would LOVE to get to but all these people just keep showing up. We're so stressed out about it!"

[pezgirl7]

I would love more of Emma's story. Many in the audience identify with her because she is the Everyman outsider that we were first introduced to. She and her family should be equally important. I'm including Hook as "family" at this point. It's gonna happen :)

Not that we can believe anything the writers say, but at Comic Con, I think they referred to Hook as part of Emma's family. But I think they also were referring to Regina.

Here's the quote, it's not really spoilery.

HOROWITZ: The Charming family is in crisis. That’s the big driving element of the beginning of the season.

KITSIS: And the Charming Family now extends to a lot more people, I would say.

[RadioGirl27]

Nah, they were talking about Regina and Rumple, not about Hook.

[Mari]

LOL!

And this is why we would never have a flashback about Hook's childhood. Every time I see a post about it here or in Tumblr, I'm going to answer with this quote.

It might be worth permanently saving, so that it's easy to pull out when needed.  After all, there are times coming when it would probably apply 2-3 times a day.  :)

[pezgirl7]

Nah, they were talking about Regina and Rumple, not about Hook.

In MY opinion, they were referring to all three of them. Man, some of you guys are so cynical sometimes, it's hard to deal with especially when you want to be excited about new information.

[RadioGirl27]

Man, some of you guys are so cynical sometimes, it's hard to deal with especially when you want to be excited about new information.

I'm usually less cynical, but with this show I have learn to lower my expectation to the maximum, and even doing so, I have been deceived a couple of times.

Hook is my favourite character, and I would love for him to have a big role on the show. But, just by watching the show, I can tell that A&E don't care about him as much as I do. So I don't expect them to give him a big role this season.

Edited July 12, 2015 by RadioGirl27

[Souris]

It's kind of funny, in a sad way, that A&E said they created this show to bring hope, and it's only made me more cynical about TV shows.

[pezgirl7]

I think a lot us have had to lower our expectations with this show. There are many things from last season that I thought would happen, but didn't, or storylines that took a weird turn or ended abruptly. But I still prefer to speculate and hope for the best. Hope for the best, expect the worse I guess. :)

[Curio]

Every time I see a post about it here or in Tumblr, I'm going to answer with this quote.

It might be worth permanently saving, so that it's easy to pull out when needed.  After all, there are times coming when it would probably apply 2-3 times a day.  :)

 

I love it. I'm all for it. Here's a version with a cool m-dash:

 

"There's just so many people that it's like, it's sometimes hard to do that story and sacrifice Regina's story. That's just showbiz." —Edward Kitsis

[tri4335]

"There's just so many people that it's like, it's sometimes hard to do that story and sacrifice Regina's story. That's just showbiz." —Edward Kitsis

 

This really feeds into my take on what happened with MJR.  I think that he was scarificed at the alter of LP and Regina.  I think that MJR wanted a to be second male lead after RC and had right to think that way since he was courted for the show by the creators and the character was made for him. The only way to do that would be to distinguish him in the  credits as "with" before the "and" RC.  GG and JMO are the female leads in the show per contract and their listing in the credits. But if MRJ was listed as "with" then LP falls to fifth in the lead category and I think that EK and AH want to tell her story and everyone else is secondary.  If you had Emma and Neal get together, why wouldn't they push to have their biological son back from the woman who gaslighted him and used him to prop up her life.  I think they didn't want to write for Neal because that could/would be more interesting then their nth rendition of why Regina is the awesome of the awesome and is so victimized by all the horrible people in both the EF and SB.  That quote above and MRJ's quote that they wanted to go in a bold new direction (Robin's description of Regina) so bye bye Neal and given the fact that he seems to be really friendly with other cast members makes me think my take on the situtation is right.  Of course, I'm sure to be wrong but until proven otherwise that's what I read between the lines.

[Curio]

This really feeds into my take on what happened with MJR. I think that he was scarificed at the alter of LP and Regina.

 

Baelfire/Neal is definitely one of the most egregious examples, but a lot of characters on this show have had their plots completely cut off in favor of Regina's story. Mary Margaret is the new mayor of Storybrooke for an entire half season and we spend a lot of time on her struggles to be a good mom and a good leader? Let's scrap all of that, never mention that plot existed, and let Regina be mayor again. Hook had his heart torn out by Rumple, was forced to do his bidding, and nearly died in front of Emma? Doesn't matter; we need to skip right ahead to Regina's happy ending and we need Emma to give Regina shots. How did Bae interact with Pan while he was in Neverland? Or did he interact with Hook at all after he became a Lost Boy? Who cares? We need to show another flashback of Regina vs. Snow round ∞. 

 

I get so frustrated with this show because sometimes it tricks me into believing it's an ensemble cast show, and then the writers whack me upside the head and remind me it's truly only about one or two characters. Everybody else are just props or filler.

 

MRJ's quote that they wanted to go in a bold new direction

 

Okay, now you have me curious. What did MRJ say? And I guess we'll never truly know what went down with the writers/Michael/Neal's character, but I sense it wasn't happy rainbows and roses if he was killed off so abruptly. Especially since Bae was such an integral part of the show's mythology and Emma's life.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Curio

[tri4335]

He tweeted on 3/31/2014:

 

1) I did not ask to leave the show. Nor was I fired. Neal's death was nothing more than a bold storytelling choice. As an actor I always want to tell bold stories #OUAT.

 

 

Like I stated, I'm most likely wrong but that's my take. As he notes he didn't ask to leave nor was he fired, I think he wanted a promotion and more integral part of the story and they want to tell Regina's story and have him as well as many other characters there to prop up her stories or be in the background.

[Souris]

Ugh, Eddy says Emma sacrificed herself for Regina's happiness. He also managed to turn a question about Emma into an answer about Regina.

 

I was all filled with happy warm fuzzies after Colin interviewing JMo, but now I want to flip tables. Especially since I watched this right after the third Regina Arguments Debunked video I linked in the Regina thread.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Souris

[HoodlumSheep]

No, Eddy, why??!!

Edited July 14, 2015 by HoodlumSheep

[Camera One]

Wow, that was clear as day coming straight from the horse's mouth.

 

Eddy: "The moments everyone loves and talks about are earned because of all the drama."

 

Uh, no, they're not.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

There you go. Emma did sacrifice herself for Regina's happiness. So done with this sh*t!

[Faemonic]

"There's just so many people that it's like, it's sometimes hard to do that story and sacrifice Regina's story. That's just showbiz." —Edward Kitsis

 

1.) Fullmetal Alchemist had 40 main characters, and to my knowledge none of their voice actors doubled for the anime.

2.) I'm sure the Powers That Be in showbiz anywhere would be really happy that talent fees went to somebody that you didn't use.

3.) ...Regina's story...yes...

 

About MJR, though, I really thought Nealfire and Regina were going to face-off over Henry? What kept that storyline from being about Regina...is someone else in the writer's table a vocal Dearie  or Ugly Duckling? (Oddly enough, neither of those showed.)

[Rumsy4]

MRJ was most likely going with "bold writing choice" as opposed to "cop out" when they informed him that his character was going to die. 

 

ETA: Faemonic, you were on the money about OUAT being Regina's Cinderella story. When your former victim devotes her time and energy to work on your happy ending, and finally sacrifices herself for the sake of your happiness, that's one heck of a fairy tale! 

Edited July 14, 2015 by Rumsy4

[Souris]

I kind of wonder if A&E told JMo that Emma sacrificed herself for the town rather than Regina, or if she just got that from the dialogue. Because she has been quite adamant about it. I wonder how JMo would feel if she saw that video. (SQers are tweeting it to her and telling her she was wrong, so she very well may see it.)

 

Given their predilection for misinformation and outright lying sometimes, I wouldn't be surprised if A&E told different things to different actors. There was that bit with Meghan Ory when they promised her a storyline in S2 & then didn't deliver, which led to her leaving.

[Camera One]

Did JMo give her interpretation of Emma sacrificing herself for the whole town on the panel that included A&E?  Or was it only in the separate interview with the actor who played Hook?   I'm still quite shocked that Eddy described the rationale for what Emma did in such a narrow way.  I could have sworn they were trying to be something for everyone.  And when did Emma make a "pledge" to Regina?  In "Breaking Glass"?  

[tennisgurl]

It really seems like JMo and a lot of the actor actors are working on a different wavelength than A&E. While they are actually trying to do right by their characters, A&E are just trying to bring everything back to Regina.

 

And that "showbiz" line...what the hell? Tons of shows have ensembles, that is what you billed yourselves as once upon a time! Use it. The industry is not forcing you to overdose on Regina worship, that would be YOU and YOUR choices. 

[Shanna Marie]

The industry is not forcing you to overdose on Regina worship, that would be YOU and YOUR choices.

These are the people who answer questions about what will happen with stuff like "we hope so" or "we'd like to see that."

 

And their Mary Sue hasn't taken responsibility for her choices yet, so why should they? Blame the writing elves. The way the show turns out can't be their fault at all.

[KAOS Agent]

 

I'm still quite shocked that Eddy described the rationale for what Emma did in such a narrow way.

 

The narrow-minded thinking does tell me that the writers really do warp the entire show around Regina. Rumpel loses his son for good, Snowing screwed over Lily and lose their child such that their relationship can never be what it should have. Real punishments for their actions. But Regina runs around murdering people, abusing her child, enslaving men, stealing blood and stealing hearts and she is so deserving of happiness that one of her victims is willing to sacrifice her entire life just so that Regina can have the happy ending she was promised. That's so fucked up. This show is supposed to be about hope? 

[RadioGirl27]

Someone should send Eddy all the videos with Jennifer saying that Emma sacrificed herself for the town and not for Regina. And show him all the insulting tweets and attacking messages she has recieved because of it. He is contradicting their (supposed) lead actress in a very controversial issue, that has caused her a lot of stress, in the name of their obssession with a particular character. And, as always, the rudeness of the SQ shippers earns them a reward.

[Faemonic]

Someone should send Eddy all the videos with Jennifer saying that Emma sacrificed herself for the town and not for Regina. And show him all the insulting tweets and attacking messages she has recieved because of it. He is contradicting their (supposed) lead actress in a very controversial issue, that has caused her a lot of stress, in the name of their obsession with a particular character. And, as always, the rudeness of the SQ shippers earns them a reward.

Why? It's the bad apple Evil Regals and Swan Queen shippers who are actually watching the same show he's writing. JMo's just getting paid to be a warm body.

 

Seriously, though, I doubt the writers ever actually talk to their actors about the character. I don't know what the director says when he or she goes up to any of them and goes, "Your motivation is _____ " or is it only theater geeks who do that?

 

Extra seriously, this means everybody actually working on the thing is going to have their own headcanon. The writers. The actors. Viewers. I disagree with JMo's headcanon of the pale pink dress in The Apprentice, for instance, but maybe she didn't pick it...maybe that was Eduardo Castro's doing, and she just tried to make sense of that to herself. I'm not going to attack either of them just because I think it's cuter if it meant Emma and Snow had a moment offscreen with Snow picking Emma's outfit!

 

So, why do we have very controversial issues like...this. It doesn't threaten the representation and visibility of gay rights if somebody else sees more noblesse oblige to the Dark Swan, and if it does it should be discussed as an issue instead of ensuring that the canon doesn't leave any room for interpretation. I'm a narrative atheist: Word of God is a lazy trope to resort to.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Faemonic

[Souris]

I wouldn't be surprised if Adam tweets that Eddy "misspoke" in a while. He's done it before when Eddy put his foot in his mouth.

 

I WOULD be surprised, because it's clearly how they feel and they wouldn't do anything to support an actor or rain on SQ's parade.

[maryle]

This show to me is becoming like a big Rorschach projective test!

It's intentionally writing to be ambiguous about almost every plot or character development.

That why for some Belle fans Regina took her heart without totally Belle concent but Regina fans will have a different view and both can use scene from the show to support their claim.

The final f season 4 is totally writing like that every fandom can have their interpretation and it is deliberate by the writer .

so its not what Eddy in a particuliar situation said about the sacrifice scene that totally disappointed me about their interview.

It is their so oblivious favoritism for Regina . They clairly state that Will had to be sacrified for her,God forbit that learning about what happened with Ana and Will could take time from Regina and her awesome love story with Robin.

The vault scene could even have been cut! Horrific!

The interviewer ask about Emma. let's make it about Regina who totally earned her happy ending with Robin Wood!

Emma should just have to work harder her life has been so easy,not like poor Regina

[Shanna Marie]

Eddy: "The moments everyone loves and talks about are earned because of all the drama."

This, right there, shows how little they know what they're doing. Way too often, what they do is cheap manipulation, not earned drama.

 

For instance, the moment they're so proud of, the one that makes them pat themselves on the back for making people sympathize with the Evil Queen when the whole Charming family is finally united and she doesn't get invited to dinner. That's not earned at all.

 

To start with, it's ridiculous for anyone to expect that people who've been kept apart because of one person's malicious actions would include the person who's been tormenting them when they're finally united. Even if Regina is delusional enough to expect them to just forget all her torment, she doesn't like these people. She loathes them. They represent everything she hates. Is she really going to be hurt and sad that they don't want to be her friends? She might have been angry that Henry chose to be with the others, but "why didn't they invite me?" -- No.

 

It's also an emotional cheat because the feelings they stirred up in viewers have nothing to do with the situation. They outright encouraged people to draw upon their own feelings of a time when the Mean Girls didn't invite them to join them or a time when they felt excluded -- but that isn't what's going on here. Regina is not the victim. If I set out to sabotage these writers' careers and ruin their lives, you can bet that they wouldn't invite me to sit with them at a banquet or be on a panel with them. So it's utterly dishonest for them to write in such a way that we're supposed to feel like the Charmings have done something wrong in not including Regina.

 

Meanwhile, they've entirely missed the chance for a truly meaningful and potentially emotional moment in going for the cheap sympathy. I've been analyzing Pixar stories lately, and one thing I find interesting is how flawed their protagonists are. In some ways, the protagonists are also the villains. There may be something else out there that's objectively worse, but that thing likely would have been less of a threat if the protagonist hadn't screwed up. In those movies, there's usually a big "I screwed up" moment that's a real tearjerker because it's the time when the protagonist has to face his/her failings and realize that it might not be possible to fix it, but they have to try. It's framed in such a way that the emotion is universal and relatable. True, most of us haven't turned our mothers into bears or schemed to have our rival left behind in a move, but they boil it down to "I screwed up because I acted out of fear and/or envy," and boy is that universal. In that moment, the audience is forced to face and come to terms with their own failings, and that's what brings on the tears. Then it's cathartic when the protagonist pulls him/herself together and does what it takes to set things right, even if that requires a great sacrifice. This should have been Regina's Pixar "I screwed up" moment, when she saw what her revenge really got her -- she's no happier than she was before the curse, her victims have managed to be happy in spite of her, and now she's lost everything. She was wrong. But instead of making Regina and the audience face the screwup and deal with the darker parts of themselves, they went for cheap manipulation to create an emotion that had nothing to do with the moment.

 

What's weird is that they have done this the right way. Hook sailing away on the Jolly Roger had his Pixar Screw-Up moment, and it led to him turning back. We, the audience, had to confront what we would have done in that situation -- sail away to safety or take the risk to help others? When he makes the right choice, it's cathartic. We can feel good about Hook and about ourselves.

[october]

Oh that video is a hoot. I especially loved Eddy's strawman argument about how they'd love to have scenes of Emma and Hook watching netflix but it'd get boring because no dramah! I suppose that's why we have so little world building and such unsatisfying pacing; instead we jump from plot bullshit to plot bullshit, with little time to see the characters wind down and process what they go through each week. It's also why Emma is now able to conjure stuff out of thin air and heal injuries, because who needs build up and establishing the rules and limitations of the main character's magical abilities, especially since she'd barely had control of her powers just a half season before? Boooorrring.

Edited July 14, 2015 by october

[Dani-Ellie]

From Shanna Marie in the Emma thread:

 

 

 

I like that idea, and that does seem to be the way it plays out, but I doubt it's intentional.

 

Maybe it's just me but I really wish we could kinda back off the notion that more and more things in the writing are simply happy accidents. Regardless of whether it's how we would write the story, these guys are professional television writers who have a show on a national broadcast network. They have to be doing something right because ahead of this show's premiere, some of the ratings websites were taking over/unders on how quickly this thing was going to get canceled and here we are, going into season five.

 

These guys are the ones who put thought into the color of the car Emma drives into town. They made it bright yellow to signify that she's bringing color and light to Storybrooke. That doesn't strike me as a detail they'd put in if they didn't want Emma to be something more than someone who just runs around saving everyone. That strikes me as a detail they put in because they wanted her to represent the light, the hope, coming back into these people's lives. I don't see why in the example of Emma's role as savior being a catalyst that it can't be simply that the characters have yet to realize they don't need Emma to do every little thing, which is why they always call for her, instead of it being a writing mistake.

 

For me, it's getting increasingly difficult to discuss things here because it feels like every discussion ends up coming down to the various ways the writers suck or how the writers are going to screw up a plot we know nothing about yet.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Dani-Ellie

[Shanna Marie]

Regardless of whether it's how we would write the story, these guys are professional television writers who have a show on a national broadcast network. They have to be doing something right because ahead of this show's premiere, some of the ratings websites were taking over/unders on how quickly this thing was going to get canceled and here we are, going into season five.

Doing some things right and putting thought into some things doesn't mean they do everything right and put thought into all things. There have been enough times when they've acted blindsided by the way people saw something or reacted to something to indicate that not every detail of the series is precisely planned, that not everything that appears on the screen is exactly what they wanted to convey. For instance, they still seem to be utterly baffled by the fact that people saw Regina's treatment of Graham as rape. That's apparently not what they meant it to look like.

 

In the case of whether Emma is really meant to be shown as the Savior who's responsible for saving everyone or a catalyst who helps people save themselves, the evidence on the screen is that it varies by what they want of the plot at that moment. Although what actually happens is that someone else usually ends up saving the day while Emma is out of commission in some way, this has never been acknowledged by any of the characters. Either that's not what the writers actually intend to show or they mean to show that all the characters are utterly dense and some of them are real jerks. After the second or third time that someone other than Emma had to save the day, you'd think someone would notice that Emma isn't the one doing the saving and they'd back off on the Savior stuff. Or else they'd point out that she helps in other ways when she talks about the burden of being the Savior. Regina might tell her to give it a rest because that was about the curse, not about everything for the rest of her life, or else possibly Regina might have said something to release Emma from that vow about happy endings when Regina realized that she writes her own happy ending. So what looks like is happening is they want Emma to be the Savior when they need her to be responsible for things and make sacrifices, but then they let someone else save the day and act like it's a surprise twist. They're trying to have it both ways, where Emma is obligated to be the Savior but doesn't get to do much saving because someone else (usually Regina) gets the moment in the spotlight.

 

These guys came up with a brilliant concept and characters that jump off the screen, but that doesn't mean everything they do is right and good. They've got a massive blind spot where Regina is concerned that affects the way they write Emma. And while the show is more successful than anyone imagined before it aired, it also has dropped considerably from its initial ratings, so clearly they developed something that interested people but haven't always been able to hold their interest, which suggests that there might be issues in the execution of their brilliant concept. They wouldn't be the first showrunners to create something great and then struggle to sustain it.

[Curio]

(Slightly off topic for this thread, but if you're annoyed by the cynicism in the forum lately, just keep posting positivity. Eventually, it'll catch on more. I actually like over-analyzing things to death, but I also know it can sometimes get on people's nerves.)

 

Back on topic—I agree that we're often too critical of the writers on the show, but at the same time, there are some pretty glaringly obvious mistakes and missteps that occur on screen that make you kind of shake your head. Simple continuity things like not remembering Hook was in the room when Belle revealed her past with Anna, not allowing Anna to run into Belle or Rumple in Storybrooke, and the writers forgetting again that Hook was present when the dagger was being used during the spell to release the fairies from the hat are pretty big mistakes.

 

I think the main grievance I have with the show right now is that there's a huge clash between what I want to see on screen and what Adam & Eddy want to see on screen. Back in Season 3, I actually really enjoyed the Neverland arc and a lot of plot things happened where I was excited about the direction of the show. I didn't expect them to actually put Hook and Emma together, but they did! And it was such a great feeling to be pleasantly surprised by that. I didn't expect to like Tink so much as a character, but she really won me over! I didn't expect to like Pan as a villain so much! These were all pleasant surprises that kept me really positive about the show. But now, there are huge plot developments that just make me think "...what? Why?" Like Emma literally dropping everything and promising to give Regina—and only Regina—a happy ending, a plot that literally lasted the entire season. The author plot. The egg baby plot. Freaking Zelena and the rape baby plot. Those were all not-so-pleasant surprises that made me rethink why I watch the show in the first place.

 

Adam & Eddy remind me a bit of Terence Winter and Boardwalk Empire. That show's main protagonist was always Nucky Thompson, and clearly Terence's favorite character, but it became clear to the audience that Nucky wasn't the most dynamic character of the show, nor was he the heart of the show. He was just the rich gangster who got to say snarky lines and kill everyone around him without having to ever pay for his actions. (See the parallel to Once?) There were plenty of other characters in Boardwalk who were much more interesting and better for the audience to connect to than Nucky, but the writers never wanted to spend more than a C or B-plot with them. I liked Boardwalk, I still watched four seasons of it, but I always had to shake my head at the missed opportunities the writers were overlooking by not devoting more time to some of the other more interesting characters. The same kind of thing is happening to Once for me.

[KAOS Agent]

The showrunners spent eight years working through the story that they told in Season 1. It was a very complex story full of lots of little details and symbolism that made the story come to life. When you've got eight years to think over things and the time to poke holes in your narrative and fix them or better explain things, your story is going to be much tighter and coherent. It was a wonderful world that the writers created. Unfortunately for them, they don't have the luxury of years of thought and are stuck with a few months to build a story. During that time, episodes are shot, important scenes are cut and a lot of details fall through the cracks. It's got to be incredibly hard to be creative and maintain coherency with this tight scheduling. It's also going to greatly expose a writer's weaknesses because there's not enough time for a story editor (even if it's the writers themselves doing the review) to come in and poke holes in the story or ask questions about whether the writing is conveying the things they intend.

 

If you read interviews with Adam & Eddy in early Season 1, the weaknesses in their writing that are glaring today existed back then. It's just that so much was being thrown at the audience and the idea that more stuff would be revealed covered this up. For example, one interviewer asked them how exactly the curse worked. Was it a Groundhog Day thing or something else? How did it work with regards to Henry? These are the types of questions that are pretty obvious and basic when you consider the story we were being told. The answer was like, "Uh, we've never really thought about those details and we're surprised that people are interested in details like that." (not an actual quote) That really showed their lack of understanding about the importance of world building. There was no framework in their heads for how magic worked, its limitations or rules for wielding it. For Season 1, this wasn't really that big of an issue because the story they were telling didn't really require it. However, once they embarked on Season 2, those questions needed to be answered - most especially because they kept saying that magic works differently in Storybrooke. How is it different? Did they put any thought at all into what this meant or was this just a convenient excuse to avoid the obvious magical solution to the problems they were creating in town? (I lean towards the latter idea.) Even if not for the audience, the writers having a basic framework gives them some rules to follow. It makes the story make better sense and provides reasons for why magic users do things. For example, if characters can poof themselves anywhere, why do they bother walking/driving to get there? Sure, having rules makes it harder because you can't just suddenly pull a magical whatsit out of nowhere to solve all of your issues, but it creates a more believable world for the people in your story and should force a more coherent narrative because you have a whole room full of writers who are then all on the same page regarding the limitations of the world.

 

I don't expect to like all of the storylines they put out there, but I do expect the story to make sense. We know they're capable of great things. It's what drew us to the show in the first place, which is why it's so frustrating to watch sometimes. Even last year, I was not at all excited about Frozen and was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed it, so I still have hope (futile as it may seem at times like when unpleasant surprises like the Zelena baby plot pop up). I'm really hoping Season 5 brings back the fun. 

[Shanna Marie]

We know they're capable of great things. It's what drew us to the show in the first place, which is why it's so frustrating to watch sometimes.

That's it exactly. If it hadn't been a certain level of good, then it would be easy to just turn off the TV and move on. I watched the pilot of Revolution and never watched another minute of it because I didn't like the characters and thought the situation was stupid. I turned off both Stargate: Universe and Under the Dome in mid-episode midway through the first seasons because the characters were too stupid to live and the writers were doing the least interesting possible things with the premise.

 

In this case, though, the premise and characters are so good that I'm hooked, but I get very frustrated with the way they half-ass a lot of the writing. They aren't mining the brilliant situations they created and instead are acting like ADD toddlers on a sugar high, flinging things in right and left and keeping everything on a very superficial level, skimming the surface before darting on to the next thing. This constant rush to the next thing means they're glossing over all the worldbuilding and coming up with a lot of raging inconsistencies. And then there's the giant Regina blind spot that's like a black hole in the middle of the series, warping everything else around it. What this show really needs is a good showrunner to reel in the creative minds and keep them on track. Let them come up with ideas and let someone more disciplined shape those ideas into a story.

[Dani-Ellie]

I get that and believe me, I'm frustrated with the missed potential, too. And perhaps this belongs in the fandom thread, but I do find it very difficult to have a discussion when every discussion inevitably comes down to "well, the writers suck, so..." Because no, they don't. They've created characters that have touched every single one of us to the point that we're giving up our free time to discuss it on the internet. They've created a fantasy fairy tale show that's made it to at least season five on a broadcast network. That is insanely hard to do. Plus, these guys are first-time showrunners, and yes, it absolutely shows, but at the same time, there are bound to be some growing pains because of that.

 

I just feel like we don't always give the writing team enough credit for what they have done. And I also feel like since we've been watching this show for four full seasons now, we know the show is going to zoom the plot along at the speed of light and we know they're not going to hit the deep emotion we seem to want. I've adjusted my expectations to match what we are getting rather than what we could be getting. I still enjoy the hell out of this show, and I just really wish there was more positive discussion because I don't want to constantly shit on it and it's very difficult to feel like you're enjoying something in a vacuum.

[yeswedo]

Hi folks,

There are a lot of off topic posts in here over the past couple of days. I will be moving / deleting any that don't belong.

 

And please remember to state your opinion without slamming other posters. It's ok to disagree as long as it's civil disagreement.

Thanks

[yeswedo]

Reposting the guidelines from the pinned post here as a reminder.

Please use this guideline when deciding what to post here vs elsewhere.

• If you're talking about why the writers' had a character make a certain choice/decision/action/inaction, that would go here.
• If you're talking about why a character made a certain choice/decision/action/inaction, that would go somewhere else.

 

With some new additions:

• Not every piece of information from an interview with Adam & Eddy belongs here. Unless it relates specifically to writing decisions it should be in another thread (Media,  Spoilers, etc).
• Discussions about acting choices do not belong here.  There are plenty of other threads to talk about the actors and characters.

 

As a reminder if there are certain posters that you disagree with to the point you don't want to read their posts, use the Ignore feature.

And above all, keep the tone of your posts civil even when you are disagreeing with other opinions. If you spot another poster crossing the line report the post or send the OUAT mods a PM. Do not engage.

 

This thread has a tendency to go far off topic. We want to avoid closing it permanently so please be mindful of where and what you are posting. PM the mods if you have any questions.

[Faemonic]

So, I watched

, where she echoed Holly Lyle's advice to "worldbuild small" that is, focus on the playing characters and how the world events have effected them rather than write (because Lyle is a novelist) a giant prologue about the Cataclysm of Argyleblargh and the rise of the Knights of the Eighth Imperium.

 

As much as I've gone, "But what does that mean?? How does Cursed Consent wooork?! Why does the portal need a compass in this episode and a happy thought about home the next? Doesn't Emma have uncontrollable magic because she's a True Love Baby so is there trouble in paradise for Snowing if they think Nealflake is normal? This worldbuilding suuucks..."

 

I do understand now that "Because, Um, Magic That's Why" is left open-ended and changeable in service to character development. They don't need to write themselves into a corner in order to make this show into a documentary about nonexistent physics, when they can write themselves into a corner concerning the redemption arc of a character.

 

I'm trying to be positive. I'm really trying.

[Shanna Marie]

So, I watched Jill Bearup's review of Star Wars: A New Hope, where she echoed Holly Lyle's advice to "worldbuild small" that is, focus on the playing characters and how the world events have effected them rather than write (because Lyle is a novelist) a giant prologue about the Cataclysm of Argyleblargh and the rise of the Knights of the Eighth Imperium.

I think that works to some extent. I was trying to reread some early 80s fantasy this summer, and yeah, there's either the prologue giving you the entire history of the world or there's the wizard who shows up in chapter one to have the "As you know, Bob" conversation telling someone the history of their world before inviting that person to join the quest. But if you're writing a series, I think you have to worldbuild big and write small, or else things will spiral out of control and you'll be trapped by your own freedom. We see the evidence of that in Star Wars -- the original trilogy works with fairly limited worldbuilding and the focus on the characters, but then goes absolutely insane in the prequels, which contradict themselves and the original trilogy and require a lot of people to make some really dumb decisions in order for things to work. There are a number of things that ended up being worked into the mythology by the end of the first trilogy that weren't planned in the first movie, and the more you look at them, the less sense they make and the more handwaving that was required to explain them in setting things up in the prequels.

 

What I mean by worldbuild big, write small is that you have to know the details of how your world works even if what you actually write is focused on how it affects your characters. You're always free to change your mind about anything that hasn't yet shown up in the finished product, but you have to know a lot about your world and its rules to even write how the characters are affected on an ongoing basis. With OUAT, we really see that in the way magic works. Because they didn't bother creating rules and limits, they now have a really difficult situation to write. If Rumple, Regina, and now Emma can pretty much do anything they want with the wave of a hand, how do you come up with a villain that's going to challenge them? But if a villain is so powerful that they'll be challenged, how can they defeat the villain? When power is infinite, requires no equipment, spells or the like, and there are no limits, it actually works to lower the stakes. Now that they've shown that not only can Rumple do magical healing, but Regina and Emma can do it too, injuries aren't a factor as long as one of them is around. It's getting harder to put people into real jeopardy.

 

Or like the sense I get that they don't actually know how the True Love Baby thing works. I don't need it spelled out for me, but I do want to be able to extrapolate the rules for myself based on what we see on screen. I want to understand how Emma is different from Philip and Aurora's baby or from baby Snowflake, why she supposedly had great potential for darkness and has innate magic and these others apparently don't. What makes her the Savior if that isn't actually about her being built into the curse, if she's an all-purpose Savior rather than just the person who can break that particular implementation of the Dark Curse?

[Camera One]

he original trilogy works with fairly limited worldbuilding and the focus on the characters, but then goes absolutely insane in the prequels, which contradict themselves and the original trilogy and require a lot of people to make some really dumb decisions in order for things to work. There are a number of things that ended up being worked into the mythology by the end of the first trilogy that weren't planned in the first movie, and the more you look at them, the less sense they make and the more handwaving that was required to explain them in setting things up in the prequels.

 

That's the problem of writing backwards to "fill in the gaps" when a satisfactory story has already been told.  The problem with writing a prequel to a successful movie is often you need to have the characters bend over backwards to get the conclusion that is already set in stone.   So that was the challenge for the "Star Wars" writers.   And this is even more difficult for "Once", since A&E insists on going back to "fill in the blanks" with surprising twists with each successive season, when there are limited relevant blanks to be filled for the main characters for the time period A&E are interested in.  And with more and more facts building up, the more and more difficult this back-writing is to do, and so by Season 4, it was pretty much WTF all over the place, culminating with the mega egg-napping fiasco.  The show has become a ret-con extravaganza.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Camera One

[Curio]

And this is even more difficult for "Once", since A&E insists on going back to "fill in the blanks" with surprising twists with each successive season, when there are limited relevant blanks to be filled for the main characters for the time period A&E are interested in. And with more and more facts building up, the more and more difficult this back-writing is to do, and so by Season 4, it was pretty much WTF all over the place, culminating with the mega egg-napping fiasco.

 

The sad thing is that there are plenty of holes to fill in with these characters' pasts, but the writers keep choosing to focus on the wrong characters or the wrong time periods, and then they end up ret-conning their original stories or repeating themselves ad nauseam. With the egg-napping flashback, we ret-con a huge chunk of the Charmings' past, and then with every Regina flashback we get, it's always the same story with no character progression.

 

We have characters like Will sitting in the sidelines where we still don't know what happened to his wife Ana or how he reacted to his sister's death (I was so sure Ingrid had something to do with his sister falling through the ice because it seemed like such a no-brainer), we don't know how Killian's father left him or how he was recruited into the royal navy, we barely know any details about how Hook was able outrun the curse or how Blackbeard came upon a magic bean (or why he was willing to even trade the bean for the Jolly in the first place instead of killing Hook on the spot), we don't know what job Neal was working when he received the "Broken" postcard, we don't know how Bae interacted with the Lost Boys in Neverland, we don't know what life was like for Emma in jail or how she was able to become a bail bonds person after that, etc.

 

But I doubt we'll ever get those backstories, because, you know... "There's just so many people that it's like, it's sometimes hard to do that story and sacrifice Regina's story. That's just showbiz." —Edward Kitsis.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Curio

[YaddaYadda]

I'd take them sacrificing other characters stories if what they wrote for Regina made sense and didn't seem to be forced and shoved rammed down my throat. Every situation doesn't require a flashback.  I mean they do without it for the other characters.  Season 4, I thought the Maleficent flashback and how she got her groove back thanks to Regina made very little sense and it didn't really move the story forward. That's just one example.

 

Sometimes, less is more and I really think that should be the case for Regina where a lot of things can just be put in dialogue as opposed to the elaborate flashbacks we get.  

[Serena]

I think I've recently said it in another thread, but I believe where they went wrong with flashbacks post S1 is that they just weren't telling a story anymore. In S1, they were telling (non-chronologically, but that kind of made it more interesting) the story of how Snowing met, fell in love, got separated, Snow got cursed and then rescued. Sometimes they had one-off stories like Jiminy Cricket, but it was mostly that. So you didn't just have the SB story to get invested in, but also the EF story. 

In S2, I thought we were gonna get the story of how Snowing got back the kingdom, but we got... nothing? Then in 3B, AGAIN I thought we were gonna get the missing year, and again nothing. 4A got back to the "one big story" thing with Frozen, but it was all guest stars. But if you liked them, again, it wasn't badly done. It's when they decided to go for random event who are only useful to make a point about the present/explain some "parallel" that it gets boring in the long run.

[Camera One]

The reason 4A worked for me was because we did get one big story, but it also worked because the actors who played Elsa and Anna were so awesome and I'm guessing the Disney forced A&E to give them one big story.

 

I'm wondering if they thought the "one big story" for 4B was the sad story of Lily and how she was separated from her mother by horrible Snowing and then endlessly rejected by Young Emma, and how the Apprentice and the Author were involved.

[Curio]

I'm wondering if they thought the "one big story" for 4B was the sad story of Lily and how she was separated from her mother by horrible Snowing and then endlessly rejected by Young Emma, and how the Apprentice and the Author were involved.

 

That actually kind of works. You start off with Maleficent's backstory about how Regina got her groove back, then you go to the flashback of Maleficent teaming up with the Queens of Darkness and Snowing stealing the egg baby, and then you get the flashback of Lily running into Emma and the Sorcerer, and finish with the lame road trip to pick up Lily and the mother and daughter reunite. It's kind of a jumbled mess because they threw in backstories of Ursula and Cruella that had nothing to do with any of the other plots, but it thematically makes sense I guess.

 

Maybe that's why I hated 4B so much (besides the focus on Operation Dumbass), because I couldn't care less about Maleficent and Lily.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Curio