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

[BoPeeps]

Kitsis and Horowitz actually believe  "it's so amazing". But even acknowledging basic self-centered writers' egos, this is immature, middle school hubris talking.

 

A&E are concept people. They have taken an intriguing idea and presented it with charismatic and visually appealing actors while playing to and coyly manipulating the shippers, tumblr, Tweeter obsessed and everyday, non-internet viewers. Even taking into account the often vapid and brainlessly accepted ADHD mind of network TV productions, these writers are habitually disappointing.They have continually proven themselves seriously lacking in supportive story telling substance.

 

WHY do we/I/any still watch?  For mindless fun?  Possibly. Mindless CAN be healing and good. For MANY viewers, they suck us in with our craving for a good fantasy twisted fairy tale.  But we still WANT it to be intelligent and unique fun. We are hungry for good plot with thoughtful and progressive character development in a fantastical world.  We NEED the adventure with pretty costumes and magic and "derring do".  These are escapist dreams taking us out of our cranking out-hard-fought-realty daily lives.   We are addicted to the potential and the pretty. We cling to *moments* of coolness that feed our growling stomachs. But hunger pains always seem to set in after each episode. Maybe NEXT episode, NEXT arc, NEXT season...etc. etc. etc. (Fans on message boards, blogs and social media consistently come up with more interesting possibilities that show a more complex, honest and detailed story line.)  Our continuing and forgiving needs have been their saving grace... so far. 

 

But because WE want it doesn't make what they give us that quality product. Their *it is so amazing *  presentations are more often...not.

[Camera One]

Why do we watch?  Probably because a lot of us have a deep interest in the source material from which they draw from (albeit extremely loosely).  Plus what you mentioned, the fact that they cast charismatic actors who have personified these characters.  So in a sense, the writing is probably low on our list of why we watch.  I can't say any of us would be satisfied by "mindless" entertainment considering how much we use our minds to analyze every nanosecond of each episode, LOL.  The fact the writers think their show is "amazing" is the reason why nothing big is going to change.  We're Snow with eternal hope and A&E&J&Co are Regina.  

Edited November 11, 2015 by Camera One

[FierceAfroChick]

But because WE want it doesn't make what they give us that quality product. Their *it is so amazing *  presentations are more often...not.

 

And I think this is the case with the Camelot storyline.  At times, the actors can elevate the performances so that parts of it are enjoyable.  But I think it was lazy to take such an amazing tale and gut it to suit your ever changing lore.  I really think it would have benefitted this show to expand its own mythology in regards to the Enchanted Forest, Misthaven -- whatever you want to call it -- and mine stories from that instead of gutting a character as noble as Arthur.  There is just some stuff you don’t touch and turning Excalibur into the butt end of the Dark One dagger wasn’t brilliant IMO.   It was sacrilegious.

[BoPeeps]

This is why, even though I love the concept of witty, fractured fairy tales and am addicted to the visual whimsy, magic and fantasy, I cannot respect the writers who totally butcher iconic characters.

Robin and Marian were the first victims. The tawdry abuse of these well established and honored legends still rankles.

Arthur and his Camelot are the second but I doubt it will be the last.

What they did to Maleficent was beyond the pale as well. The lack of respect shown to these characters by these writers is appalling. So, for the most part I ignore these characters because to acknowledge them validates the literary abuse.

While the creation of the original characters and their entwinement with fairy tale figures can be immensely clever, addictive and entertaining, (Rumple, Snow, Hook, Evil Queen, The Frozen Crew), they too often have no intelligent boundaries of taste and they flounder in mediocre soap opera drek.

[Camera One]

I really think it would have benefitted this show to expand its own mythology in regards to the Enchanted Forest, Misthaven -- whatever you want to call it -- and mine stories from that instead of gutting a character as noble as Arthur.

 

Frankly, I doubt they even know what else to do with the Enchanted Forest.  Taking on new toys is so much easier.  It gives them the chance to start from scratch and tell the "twisted" versions of the original tales.  It gives them characters with new emotional problems, rather than having to delve deep to find what existing emotional problems are in existing characters.  It's just easier to write, easier to brainstorm.

 

Didn't the writers claim 5A was going to be like Season 1?  How so?  I don't see how it's alike aside from them trying to cram in parallels with the pilot with Bad Mother Emma showing up at Regina's door and playing the opposite where Henry doesn't want to see Emma, instead of the other way around.

[FierceAfroChick]

See, I think it would be easier to create your own mythology than have to come up with all sorts of convoluted stuff so you can use something else.  That’s probably why the timelines in the Camelot arc are so screwy.

 

Or borrow from a story that you can easily make fit, like Snow White and Rose Red.  Twist that Grimm fairytale into a story about Snow’s long-lost sister,  instead of that shit with Zelena.  Didn’t they marry princes who were brothers?  They could have incorporated James in flashbacks somehow.

 

And don't even get me started on side stories (Brave) that I have absolutely no interest in.

[BoPeeps]

I realize dealing with the Mother Company has taken them down a Disney Cartoon marketing path, there is obviously no avoided that. Frozen, I thought was well done even though I was not overly fond of Anna-esque exuberance. But once they went down that road it became clear that the show was more a mouthpiece for Disney animated characters than a stand alone fantasy story. The whole Sorcerer's apprentice Mickey's Hat, magical broom plot was obliterated with this version of Merlin. And the Holy Grail....really??

 

Brave inclusion was/is pointless.

 

But ultimately it is their vision in their control and I have to watch The Inane to enjoy The Clever and overlook the braindead to get to the witty and heart tugging adventures.

[LizaD]

 

I realize dealing with the Mother Company has taken them down a Disney Cartoon marketing path,

 

Frozen bought them an extra half season at least. The ratings they're getting right now would've been the ratings for S4 and then S5 would be subsequently lower. They were floundering at the end of S3 and Frozen gave them new life temporarily. Now they probably expect some other Disney stuff to do similar things on a much smaller scale like Merida. But I believe A&E is using Disney to prop up their show, not the other way around. It also keeps them from having to put effort into their writing. For example people responded really well to the Beauty and the Beast dance reference and if that's all they've got to do, why bother putting real effort into Rumbelle? They've got to see all the successes of the Disney live reboots. The audience is there for fairy tales, A&E just can't see why.

[jhlipton]

This follows some thoughts brought up in a couple of different threads. I was thinking about the writers' propensity to keep the main characters together all the time, even when it hurts the narrative.

 

One of the things I love about Brooklyn 9-9 is that it is constantly shuffling the cast, so any  two episodes will probably not have the same grouping.  That keeps it fresh.  (Well, that and the fact that the male lead is as far from a Nice Guy as one can get.)

[Mathius]

They were floundering at the end of S3 and Frozen gave them new life temporarily.

 

Frozen gave them temporary new life, but they weren't actually floundering at the end of S3 at all.  S3 was the steadiest season the show has had, with no noteworthy drop in viewership at all.  

 

4A started off with many new viewers, but they all left before it was done and it ended with the exact same S3 audience....and then that shrunk in 4B due to the widespread disinterest in the Operation Mongoose storyline.

 

I realize dealing with the Mother Company has taken them down a Disney Cartoon marketing path, there is obviously no avoided that.

 

 

The Disneyfication of this show really kicked in with Season 4.  Before that, while Disney was always a part of the show due to ABC, it was either kept to a bare minimum (with many fairy tale characters that were Disney properties not resembling the Disney versions at all, like Snow and Charming), or there were clever or dark twists put on the purely Disney material, which I shall list below.

 

In Season 1, we had the individualized Seven Dwarves, Jiminy Cricket, Pinocchio, Belle, Gaston, Maleficent, and the Genie of Agrabah as the characters based off the Disney movies. All of them were given special twists to their stories.  

 

In Season 2, we only had Aurora and Philip, Mulan, and Gus the Mouse.  All of them were also given special distinctive twists from their Disney counterparts (and in the case of Gus, they had the balls to have him be gruesomely murdered!)

 

In Season 3, we only had Ariel, Prince Eric, and Ursula. While Ariel and Eric were played relatively straight (though Ariel does get to shank Regina with a fork and threaten to slit Hook's throat with a knife, which are pretty dark moves for a Disney princess), Ursula was given two appropriate twists, with Regina embodying the Disney version while the goddess was closer to the original fairy tale's neutral character.

 

But with Season 4, Frozen gets played straight, the Mickey hat and walking broomsticks are played straight, Chernabog is played straight, Rumbelle was given more references to Disney's Beauty & the Beast, the Disney villainess Cruella (not even a fairy tale!) looks and sounds just like the movie version, Maleficent is redesigned to look like her Disney self and given a storyline partially inspired by the Angelina Jolie film, the new Ursula's backstory with Poseidon is a copy-paste of Ariel and King Triton....even freaking Walt Disney himself gets named as a past Author!  The only real twist pulled off here was surprisingly with Cruella: despite seeming to be played straight in the present, her backstory was incredibly dark and distinctively un-Disney, and it changed the way you looked at the character.

 

And now in Season 5 we've got Brave being played painfully straight, Disney's The Sword in the Stone is seen playing in a theater at the beginning, the Disneyfying of Rumbelle continues, and we're going to get the Disney versions of Hercules, Megara, and Hades in the Spring.  Time to face facts: A&E sold their souls to the Mouse.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Mathius

[KingOfHearts]

 

S3 was the steadiest season the show has had, with no noteworthy drop in viewership at all.

Didn't 3x18 score the lowest ratings of the entire series at the time though?

[Mathius]

Yes, but that was because it aired on Easter Sunday, not anything to do with the show itself.

[Camera One]

Time to face facts: A&E sold their souls to the Mouse.

 

I think it is A&E who are the ones choosing to bring on more Disney properties.  They're shiny new toys to them.  They've even said so themselves.  Writing episodes incorporating the Cruella, the Apprentice's Hat, and Maleficent in 4B, just like incorporating Peter Pan, Skull Rock and The Little Mermaid in 3A, was considered "playing" to A&E, and it filled time before the big climatic showdown.  Win-win for them.  

 

An added bonus to Disney properties is that it provides them an easy existing story to work with.  Very little creativity or extra research would be required.  There have been plenty of "twisting" they have done in Season 4 and 5A, from making Maleficent a victim of eggnappers, to turning Arthur evil, to having Merlin watch his loved one die and become the Dark One, Robin Hood going to Oz, to Merida's father dying, plus throwing in some other related tales such as the original Snow Queen tale and Guinivere/Lancelot.  No more or less of a mishmash than the earlier seasons, except more plot plot plot.

 

The fact that the costumes and appearance are similar to the Disney counterparts mean very little.  They've been doing it from the very beginning.  The costume designer for Maleficent just didn't have time to create the elaborate headpiece in Season 1.  Snow and the Evil Queen wore all their iconic costumes from the animated movie in Season 1.

 

I seriously doubt Disney Corp is jumping with joy that Merida hits people over the head and kidnaps them.  If anything, A&E ripped up the mouse and are playing with the little parts.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Camera One

[LizaD]

S3 was the steadiest season the show has had, with no noteworthy drop in viewership at all

It was relatively steady compared to the other seasons, but no noteworthy drop? Don't think so. Taking the difference between 3A premiere and finale was a drop of about 20% in viewers. That's pretty noteworthy to me. S1 premiere to finale's drop was ~25% and S2's was ~35%. It's the lowest sure, but 20% of viewers going bye bye is still significant. I didn't do S4 cause of Frozen inflation. But it would probably be the biggest.

Year to year demos difference is S1-S2: -17%, S2-S3: -20%. So as much as S2 is bashed and rightfully so, since they lost a huge chunk of viewers, S3 had a bigger year-over-year decline in the key demo.

You want to know Frozen's impact? S3-S4: 0% change. That's Frozen's impact. Now take out 4A's numbers from S4 of which were already low towards the latter half and S3 to 4B? -17%, right in line with the other numbers.

They lose on average almost 20% every season. Frozen basically negated that avg. season loss. That's why if you look at S4 demos as a whole to current 5A avg it is a whopping -40% year to year.

Source to Spotted Ratings.

And yes A&E and their show were and are floundering. If they weren't, they wouldn't be peddling Disney so desperately,which was my original point. All they've got is Woegina, amnesia, Disney and Young and the Restless. They "sold their souls" cause they're creatively bankrupt, and the number of viewers reflect that.

Edited November 14, 2015 by LizaD

[Mathius]

I think it is A&E who are the ones choosing to bring on more Disney properties.  They're shiny new toys to them.  They've even said so themselves.  Writing episodes incorporating the Cruella, the Apprentice's Hat, and Maleficent in 4B, just like incorporating Peter Pan, Skull Rock and The Little Mermaid in 3A, was considered "playing" to A&E, and it filled time before the big climatic showdown.  Win-win for them.  

 

Bolded Peter Pan because he is not exclusively a Disney property, nor does the show's version resemble the Disney one (if anything, he's closer to how I would imagine Robin William's Pan would look like before he became Robin Williams.) Disney has nothing to do with his inclusion, his story was Eddie's favorite fairy tale so it was going to make it on to the show even if Disney/ABC didn't own it.

 

Snow and the Evil Queen wore all their iconic costumes from the animated movie in Season 1.

 

Snow only did once, in a scene making fun of the Disney version (her singing to a bird while sweeping before promptly attempting to kill the bird with the broom in a rage), and no, Regina never once wore the Disney version's outfit.  The Disney version's outfit was simple, and Regina doesn't do simple.

 

There have been plenty of "twisting" they have done in Season 4 and 5A, from making Maleficent a victim of eggnappers, to turning Arthur evil, to having Merlin watch his loved one die and become the Dark One, Robin Hood going to Oz, to Merida's father dying, plus throwing in some other related tales such as the original Snow Queen tale and Guinivere/Lancelot.  No more or less of a mishmash than the earlier seasons, except more plot plot plot.

 

Most of the things you mentioned are not Disney-related: Robin Hood is based off the legend and not the Disney fox (yet somehow the fox is more faithful and respectful of the legend!), Oz is not a Disney-exclusive and neither is Merlin, and Disney never dealt with any of the King Arthur/Camelot legend, just with Arthur's boyhood.  As for Maleficent being a victim of eggnappers, that's hardly much different from her being a victim of wing-clipping as metaphorical rape, which has been done in the Angelina Jolie movie.  The incorporation of the Snow Queen and King Fergus dying I'll give you, but the rest of the Frozen and Brave stuff surrounding them are still played painfully straight in terms of setting and how the characters look/act.  Past fairy tales on the show may have had Disney-inspired stuff, but they never felt like they were the Disney versions, they never felt like they were the universes of those movies.  But Frozen and Brave feel exactly like Frozen and Brave rather than OUAT's unique take on them, which is bothersome.

 

LizaD, in regards to your post, TV shows almost always get lower ratings in audience numbers and demo numbers with each passing season, it has nothing to do with the quality or content of the show, just that less people want to stick to watching it live, favoring DVR, DVD, internet, and other such forms of viewing. Plus, the novelty wears off as time goes on, and new interesting shows capture viewers' attention instead.

 

Losing 20% from season to season is a natural thing to happen with any show.  With OUAT, the only ratings drops that are not in line with this natural process and thus indicative of the show itself screwing up are from 2A to 2B and 4A to 4B.   

Edited November 14, 2015 by Mathius

[Rumsy4]

An added bonus to Disney properties is that it provides them an easy existing story to work with.  Very little creativity or extra research would be required. 

 

Writers use themes and elements from other stories and storytelling traditions all the time. But A&E aren't exactly writing derivative fiction. The thing is, most of the characters in OUAT bear little to no resemblance to the original characters they are supposedly derived from. In many cases, the resemblance stops with the name. That's the equivalent of name-dropping. A&E pull in viewers with a promise of bringing a new twist to familiar characters, but they are not twisting anything. They're taking their characters, pasting them onto an older template, and pretending they fit. And this mode of writing has become more blatant in later seasons.

 

Their original twist on Snow White and the Evil Queen was very interesting. But when painting Snow White as an egg-napper, which core characteristic of Snow White were they twisting? In the same way, what makes Pan interesting as Rumpelstiltskin's father other than the shock factor? Or the twist of Robin Hood falling in love with the kind of royal he would be most against, when they don't explore the tragic irony or dark humor within the situation?

 

When it comes to more recent Disney/Pixar characters like Elsa and Merida, the writers have been more careful to retain a recognizable semblance (even to the point of using the same costumes from the original works). But clearly, the studio supervision from Disney played a big role in maintaining the original core of the Frozen characters. Because with Merida, A&E missed the boat big time. They either misunderstood the movie Brave, or they simply don't care, and brought Merida into the story to namedrop and use her as a prop for their own brand of morality and story-telling. 

 

The original story A&E wanted to tell was how the Evil Queen could get her Happy Ending. Everything they have written is built on that, and it shows. The kind of stories A&E love to tell are majorly in the form of engendering sympathy for villains. It's a huge theme in modern day writing. That's why we have stories like "Wicked", "Maleficent", etc. (and why the recent Cinderella movie was noted for its non-cynical take on the story). My issue with stories like "Wicked" and "Wide Sargasso Sea" is that they are presented as the "true" version of the works they are derived from. They are creative and interesting takes on stories, but hardly erase the original narratives (whether good or bad).

 

Sometimes, in an effort to make the villains or the underdogs more sympathetic, the so called "good" characters or the original main characters are unnecessarily vilified. So, the twist has become no different from the original. The writers have fallen into the very pitfalls they claim to be exposing. For instance, to make the redemption of the Evil Queen plausible, A&E have painted her antagonist Snow White with a tar brush. They tell the story predominantly from the view point of the villains, with whom they want to audience to sympathize. How can they claim to be the more neutral or just story-teller when they present a slanted point of view as well? Why should I consider this to be of more value than a story told from the point of view of the original protagonist?  That's what makes it hard for me to get fully immersed in the OUAT-verse and enjoy it, unlike certain other works of fiction like Harry Potter or the LotR. A&E's world-building is too fragmentary, and their agenda is too blatant, for that level of immersion. 

Edited November 14, 2015 by Rumsy4

[KingOfHearts]

 

Writers use themes and elements from other stories and storytelling traditions all the time. But A&E aren't exactly writing derivative fiction. The thing is, most of the characters in OUAT bear little to no resemblance to the original characters they are supposedly derived from. In many cases, the resemblance stops with the name. That's the equivalent of name-dropping. A&E pull in viewers with a promise of bringing a new twist to familiar characters, but they are not twisting anything. They're taking their characters, pasting them onto an older template, and pretending they fit. And this mode of writing has become more blatant in later seasons.

 

You hit the nail on the head. Difference in focus, details or how a story plays out are twists. Lobotomizing characters and mutilating their core aspects is slapping a label on a lazy original work. For the first season, there was no denying Snow was Snow White or Regina was the Evil Queen. Snow was loving person caught in a power struggle, and Regina was a jealous tyrant. However, the events leading up to their tale and the ones proceeding after are adjusted quite a bit. We still got the cornerstone scenes, like Charming kissing a sleeping Snow or Regina giving Snow the poisoned apple. Circumstances differed, but the core idea did not.

 

Redeeming Regina doesn't necessarily gut out the original source material, as it's supposed to transpire later, but how it's done is not true to the characters. Regina was evil, yet the show wants to whitewash that. Snow was an innocent soul, but that's also been retconned. It's not even the fact we're seeing Regina's POV that deviates so harshly. Sometimes I think the writers want to erase S1 from history.

[Camera One]

Namedropping is a perfect description, Rumsy.  In addition to costume dropping, iconography dropping and memorable-moment dropping.  So many of these guest characters could have substituted with each other, and it would still have been the same story.  It didn't need to be Merida in 5A... they could have introduced Mulan instead, and instead have Merida in 2A instead of Mulan, because the only aspect of Merida's personality they used was that she was a hero.   Snowing could have stolen an octopus egg from Ursula instead of Maleficient's dragon egg, or heck, anybody's egg because they did not expand upon any aspect of the Sleeping Beauty mythology.  Zelena/Regina's crazy sister does not need to be the Wicked Witch, since that's pretty much in name only.  They could even have had Evil Merlin in 3A as Rumple's father who kidnapped Henry to Camelot instead of Neverland, for all they did with the Neverland mythology.  A&E use Disney and other fairy tale sources to "spice up" the basic storyline, so that's why they need and want to use these extra sources.  And as the storylines rely more and more on plot, they have needed to introduce more and more random Disney and other characters, worlds or objects.  I wasn't even a huge fan of the original Frozen movie, but how that arc differed to me was that they really looked closely at the Frozen story and the actual personalities of the characters, as well as the source material, to build a coherent world with coherent character building which felt like an expansion of that story and even deepened it.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Camera One

[Mathius]

what makes Pan interesting as Rumpelstiltskin's father other than the shock factor?

I think Pan is interesting as an adult turned back into a kid because it adds a new dimension to his desire to stay forever young, it makes it so that he KNOWS the pitfalls of grown-up life rather than just guessing them, and gives him more reason to want to avoid that, particularly when he had become such a pathetic adult who was unable to handle responsibilities.

Now, being Rumple's father, that decision was all for the benefit of Rumple's character and not Pan's, A&E have been pretty obvious about that whenever they talked about the subject.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Mathius

[Camera One]

Taking this from the Fandom thread, regarding the lack of screentime for Outlaw Queen (Robin/Regina) in 5A.

 

I think the reason OQ aren't even talking about anything regarding Zelena's pregnancy is because the writers realized they made an oopsie with this one. I think they wanted to have their "awesome" twist that Zelena was Marian, and didn't think further about what the pregnancy meant until people started pointing it out to them.

 

I think a lot of times, they get stuck on an idea they deem to be genius, and don't look at it objectively.

 

I think as usual, A&E don't know what else to do with this until the climax of the baby being born.  They are either at a loss on what Regina and Robin might talk about, or simply bored by the possibility of writing such scenes.  They've tried to give a little bit of Robin's perspective with his scene with Hook, and they did do a Regina centric right off the bat, which showed how much she loved Robin.  It doesn't help that OQ is completely irrelevant to the Camelot storyline, until the latest episode when they had Zelena ally with Arthur.

 

Frankly, I think the MAIN reason for the pregnancy stuff is the surprise twist, and also as an excuse to put Zelena back on the canvas.  This way, she coiuld be an antagonist to throw a wrench into heroes' plans, and also have her deliver some snarky lines.  A&E clearly love the "banter" between Regina and Zelena.  So the whole thing is less about Robin or OQ than about Zelena.  

 

Imagine if Zelena never returned and that time was given to the main cast having deeper conversations.  It would have made a difference in the quality of this season.  But A&E would probably prefer to listen to the feedback about how people are loving Zelena and continue on finding contrived ways of using her.  Even if Zelena hadn't returned, I'm sure they would have found another way to waste time.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Camera One

[Serena]

Maybe the writers have read our various "It makes no sense that they wouldn't throw Regina/Rumple in prison and throw away the key!" complains, and the baby storyline is their way of explaining it re: Zelena? They clearly wanted the actress back without redeeming the character, and giving her a child related to Robin would mean they have a reason to keep her around and continue to try redeeming her - it's the same tactic they used with Regina.

[YaddaYadda]

Frankly, I think the MAIN reason for the pregnancy stuff is the surprise twist, and also as an excuse to put Zelena back on the canvas.

 

I think the main reason for the pregnancy is to keep Zelena relevant.

 

They can't bring her back, and keep her locked up in her cell, especially since I doubt they might be going down redemption road for the character right this minute, what with her betraying everyone to Arthur.

 

Zelena's redemption rests squarely on Regina's shoulders, I think. 

[BoPeeps]

A bigger picture commentary:

 

After reading the new *Once* creators'  "teases" interview from the spoiler thread, I am now willing (in somewhat of a defeatist/sad tone) to admit that A&E (and Co.) are lousy writers/artistic team with no genuine clue how to tell an intelligent story.  Nor are they capable of treating their audience with the due respect and the honesty they deserve after four and a half years of loyalty, hope and patience. They just cannot seem to grasp that they continually let (a lot of) us down...and betray their own characters.

 

They are character hoarders, grabbing every conceivable literary, folk lore, fairy figure and jamming them into their plots like overindulgent parents jamming their kids' toyboxes with every doll or action figure in creation so they *have it all*` without appreciating any of them well.

 

They don't have to be so hands on, I know. They could ignore all of it and just intelligently present their vision (if they actually have one).  Don't feed the starving masses.  Step away from social media and get their head and fingers focused on the keyboard without Internet connection.  But I don't think they can survive without the directionless chaos and rabid attention of the madding crowds. In placating everyone from their Mother Company, Network Head Honchos , cracked shipper bullies, hyperactive bloggers, faux journalists, media addicts and happily-entertained fandom joy seekers, they come off looking kinda ...incompetent.

 

A vicious cycle. But other Network TV creators can do it.

I don't think they are gleefully plotting to torture the viewers and I think they are probably very nice men with some appealing, clever concepts, a wildly uncontrolled love for *what ifs* and a childlike (if somewhat cracked)  imagination. They are spot on with some elements. Even stubbornly so. But that *spot* jumps around all over the place randomly bouncing off some characters and absorbed by others but never consistently dealing with ANY of them.  The story they talk about in interviews is just not the same one making it to the small screen.

 

Also frustrating~I have never found their *interview* voices appealing or honest. They verbally blather in what I see as a grade school attempt at manipulation that is borderline insulting to the intelligence level of a huge portion of their audience.  If they really think we are that shallow and easily misdirected by their evasive *teases* and *our story is amazing* views, then I am sad for them.  But, more so, for us.

 

...Or maybe the real world of Network TV viewers just is as easily fooled, manipulated and dumbed down as they treat them.  I'm holding out that the viewers are just so fond of the characters and costumes, whimsy and wit, childlike fondness for dreams and magic that they can forgive and are willing to overlook what is clearly a mediocre gift wrapped in sparking wrapping paper.

 

What is, for us, escapism from an ever depressing and hateful real world is, for them, their professional livelihood.  But still, it's about embracing a passion.

 

Ah, what could be.

I shouldn't care. Just enjoy the mini-moments.

Last gasps can be so painful.

[kili]

...Or maybe the real world of Network TV viewers just is as easily fooled, manipulated and dumbed down as they treat them.

Most viewers do not read spoilers. They don't slavishly try to figure out a timeline. They don't count the minutes their favourite is featured on the show. And they don't read all the interviews.

 

Most viewers tune in, when they remember, to be entertained. To hear a good story this week. Perhaps to see a little love, a little twist, a little buckling of swash. If their favourite online media source has an article on the show, they might read it.

 

It's not that they are easily fooled, manipulated or stupid - they just don't take it seriously enough to notice.

 

Do I wish that the writers could get the freaking timeline correct? Yes, I do. But I also realize that they are going to toss timelines and continuity down the drain every time if its either that or writing something they think the casual viewer (the VAST majority of the audience) will find enjoyable.

 

It's frustrating that they can't figure out a way to keep the devoted fans like me satisfied with consistent storylines while keeping the causal viewer entertained, but I can see why they do it.

 

I remember a few years ago having a debate with somebody about which reality singing show was better at producing stars. She said that American Idol hadn't produced any stars for years. I pointed out that their last two seasons had produced winners that had sold platinum while The Voice had yet to produce any star. She triumphantly said "Phillip Phillips  - I hear his song everywhere". I pointed out he was from Idol, but she was insistent that he had won The Voice. She's not stupid, she just doesn't sweat the details. And if all that just sounds like gobbly-gook to you, that's what our trying to sort out the timeline means to the average viewer of Once.

 

Could A&E do better? I think so, but the format of flashbacks make it difficult (interweaving new flashbacks with old ones can create a lot of retconning) and that is why they probably love Camelot where they can  have flashbacks in a different era. If they didn't have to feature the EF each week, things would get easier for them. If they had plotted out a 7 season arc to start with, it would have also resolved the inherent flashback problem.

[Shanna Marie]

I've come to the conclusion that these so-called "master storytellers" are actually writing idiot savants. They managed to come up with a rather brilliant scenario that gives a reason to throw together all the fairytale and storybook characters in one setting and mash that up against the "real" world, and they've created a bunch of fascinating characters who are interconnected in odd and interesting ways. But they seem to have done this almost by accident while playing a "wouldn't it be cool if" game. It's not that they're not interested in exploring the depths they've created. I'm not sure they even see or recognize the extent of what they've created. So "wouldn't it be cool if Snow White and Prince Charming had a daughter who's their age and who grew up in modern America without realizing she's a princess!" But they don't really think about how that would affect the relationships among these characters and the dynamics among them, and the delightful absurdity of a tough, cynical bail bondswoman (basically, a bounty hunter, from the way they describe her work) who's actually a Disney princess seems to have been totally lost on them. They don't grasp the tricky moral situations they've created. They even seem to have forgotten the details of the relationships they've written. As I just pointed out on the relationships thread, Henry is actually the closest thing Hook has to family right now, as he's the grandson of his late lover (wife? I could swear there was an interview or something somewhere in which it was mentioned that Hook and Milah considered themselves married). Henry is all Hook has left of Milah and Bae. Even without the connection to Emma, the woman he loves now, Henry should be hugely important to Hook. There are hints that they interact offscreen, but the writers seem to have zero interest in exploring their relationship. With Robin and Regina, they had all the makings for a really intense and conflict-laden relationship -- what happens when the person who is your designated soulmate stands for everything you've been standing against or looking down upon? What if the woman who helped you get over the loss of your wife turned out to be the person responsible for separating your wife from you? -- and they don't seem to realize that they've got some interesting stuff there, instead throwing in a random baby to give them a story and keep them from being a boring happy couple.

 

Maybe they should lock these guys in a room and record their "wouldn't it be cool if" sessions, then give those ideas to real writers to develop.

[KingOfHearts]

 

So "wouldn't it be cool if Snow White and Prince Charming had a daughter who's their age and who grew up in modern America without realizing she's a princess!" But they don't really think about how that would affect the relationships among these characters and the dynamics among them, and the delightful absurdity of a tough, cynical bail bondswoman (basically, a bounty hunter, from the way they describe her work) who's actually a Disney princess seems to have been totally lost on them.

If Once was more consistent about this niche, the quality would be much better. It's part of what A&E originally conceived, even going back to pre-Lost. They had years to plan it out and it shows. If Emma is a bounty hunter who grew up alone, don't change that. It's what made her awesomely independent and strong as a female lead. All the cameos from random fairy tale characters showing up through her life take away from that. (August, Neal, Lily, Merlin, Ingrid, etc.) You have all these people redirecting her path instead of letting her make the right choices herself. Heck, even Snow, Charming, Isaac and the Apprentice interfered by lobotomizing the fetus. My point is that A&E should not be retconning core pillars of the show.

 

In many of these arcs, the writers have to bend over backwards to make them relevant to the main plot. Pan has to be Rumple's father with a prophecy needing Henry's heart.... because reasons. Zelena chooses to invade in the Missing Year and she's Regina's half-sister and she wants to go back in time... because reasons. Ingrid was Emma's foster mom and wanted a new sister... and you get the drift. Camelot seems to hold some more relevance because of the Dark One origins and Merlin's fingers touching all the cupcakes. I'm fine with going on one-off adventures into other franchises. If you want the Nevengers trekking through Wonderland with absolutely no blood relation to any of the inhabitants, I'm cool with that. But keep the character moments and main plot moving. Don't put them on hold while you tell a completely different story from another perspective. 

 

A&E want to tell a story with a broader scope than the original idea. That's a tall order and very, very out of their range of ability. Even the most seasoned writers would probably have trouble balancing everything out with so many characters. It's like Lost having multiple islands with their own timelines. It's about a curse any more... it's about anything A&E feel like writing at any given moment. The Snow White fairy tale has little to do with anything at this point. 

 

I'll give the writers one thing... they really fooled us into a long con. They got us attached to these characters, so now they can throw whatever "fun" crap they want onto the screen.

Edited November 16, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[CatMack]

Oh my god. I was brushing my teeth, getting ready for bed, and it hit me. An epiphany. The reason I can't read an A&E interview without dying a little inside.

They remind me exactly of Stephan Moffat.

They have their heads so far up their own asses they can't see how stupid their twists have become and how much it screws the long term mythology. Questions or criticisms about how things don't make sense are ignored or brushed aside. They are so assured of their own cleverness that they've lost all perspective.

I guess I knew all that before but I hadn't really put it together with why I have such an intense loathing for that kind of cluelessness in show runners talking about their shows. These are all the reasons I started hating Moffat and eventually stopped watching Doctor Who. I guess we should be thankful A&E aren't raging misogynists like Moffat too.

[Mathius]

A quote from Eddy in a recent interview explains a lot about something...

 

and even now we might do a Regina flashback where she's the Evil Queen and horrible and we'll cut to her helping Snow White.

 

It's clear that the way they see it, showing us constant new flashbacks of even more heinous actions taken by Regina as the Evil Queen are important because they're a good way to contrast to present-day Regina and how much she's "changed".  What they don't realize, or refuse to realize, is that for one thing there's only so much audience members can take before they stop giving a damn about the present and just want to see Regina pay for the past, and for another thing, Regina really hasn't changed that much at all, not to the point where she should be so easily forgiven by the characters or the audience for what we see her do in flashbacks.  She has no remorse for those deeds, she still does everything out of the same selfishness that's always been at the core of her character, and helping Snow White isn't really as big a deal as they think it is when she continues to show disdain and condensation toward her (which is passed off as "sassy").

Edited November 16, 2015 by Mathius

[LizaD]

I see the writers have learned nothing from the Marian-Zelena debacle. How do they not know that the cool factor to a "twist" is to let the audience go back and pick up on all the clues first missed but obvious in hindsight? The cool factor is not pulling it out from your asses. I was just thinking that instead of replaying straight flashbacks in a dream catcher they could've done a replay like 6th Sense did with the scenes seen in a new way. But they can't do that cause they left no such hints. Just like the Marian thing.

I know the spoiler thread peeps weren't surprised at all but even without spoilers that wouldn't have been a good surprising twist because it made no sense.

[Mathius]

There was one clue with Hook being naturally drawn toward Excalibur in 5x05, plus lots of dialogue that qualifies as "ironic" foreshadowing, but that's about it. Otherwise, it was yet another "gotcha!" twist. What else did you expect?

Edited November 17, 2015 by Mathius

[Camera One]

On paper, the premise of "The Bear King" seems pretty cool, and I can imagine A&E getting all excited over it... "Merida teams up with Mulan and Little Red Riding Hood to find a magical helmet before the Evil King Arthur and the Wicked Witch of the West can get their hands on it."

[coops]

I see the writers have learned nothing from the Marian-Zelena debacle. How do they not know that the cool factor to a "twist" is to let the audience go back and pick up on all the clues first missed but obvious in hindsight? The cool factor is not pulling it out from your asses. I was just thinking that instead of replaying straight flashbacks in a dream catcher they could've done a replay like 6th Sense did with the scenes seen in a new way. But they can't do that cause they left no such hints. Just like the Marian thing.

I know the spoiler thread peeps weren't surprised at all but even without spoilers that wouldn't have been a good surprising twist because it made no sense.

I don't rate this latest 'twist' as bad as the Marian/Zelena one but its pretty much up there because of lack of clues and hints which is the fun and clever part about these big reveals- just read any Harry Potter book to see how it is supposed to be done.

The Marian/Zelena twist was clearly hasitly put together at the last moment whereas this one I can believe they knew from the start of writing S5 where they were headed with Emma turning Hook into the dark one. However this almost makes it worse than the Zelena twist in a way because they had the chance to put in clues and hints to the endgame all along but just didn't bother.

[Curio]

I see the writers have learned nothing from the Marian-Zelena debacle. How do they not know that the cool factor to a "twist" is to let the audience go back and pick up on all the clues first missed but obvious in hindsight? The cool factor is not pulling it out from your asses. I was just thinking that instead of replaying straight flashbacks in a dream catcher they could've done a replay like 6th Sense did with the scenes seen in a new way. But they can't do that cause they left no such hints. Just like the Marian thing.

 

I'm shockingly going to defend the writers here for a second. The Marian/Zelena reveal is on a completely different level of bad retconning compared to the Dark One Hook reveal, which was actually pulled off surprisingly well (for these writers). With the Marian/Zelena debacle, we've seen how Zelena acts while glamoured up as other people on screen before. During "Ariel," Zelena could hardly keep in her laughter when she convinced Hook to swear on Emma's name. But with Zarian, throughout 4A, there are practically no signs of Zelena's mwuahaha-ing cracking through the facade. Zarian was able to say one nasty (and very true) thing when she called Regina a monster, but that was it. Throughout the rest of the arc, there are no subtle acting choices to make the audience believe that person couldn't have been anyone but Marian. I remember theorizing over the summer in the spoilers thread that maybe Marian could be Zelena in disguise, but we all basically dropped that theory once we saw Marian's performance because there was no way that could have been Zelena. Zelena's whole character is about her jealousy and scene chewing! There should have been some eye rolling or small slip ups in remembering Robin's history and their relationship, etc. Basically, Christie Laing should have been told to play her character a certain way, but in order to keep their big secret a surprise, the writers didn't tell her to portray Marian as if she was Zelena faking being Marian. I think telling Christie that tidbit could have gone a long way in possibly helping the audience accept the retcon later on.

 

But with this Dark One Hook reveal, it's a very different circumstance. Yes, Hook has technically been a Dark One the whole time in Storybrooke and maybe he should have noticed some strange ticks along the way, but much like the audience, Hook didn't actually know he was a Dark One. Unlike Zelena—who was in complete control over her glamour spell—Hook probably didn't know what was going on with him if he suddenly felt some darker urges or couldn't sleep at night. We can easily justify all of that by saying he was so emotionally exhausted by trying to figure out why Emma turned dark that he didn't even consider his darker thoughts and impulses to be anything but his anger about the Dark One situation. So we can give Colin a lot more slack for not playing it a certain way because there are no set rules for how Dark Ones behave when there's two running around at the same time. This is brand new territory, thus, more wiggle room.

 

And I have to disagree about the writers not dropping any hints along the way about Hook's reveal. Compared to the completely out of the blue retcons like Zarian, the egg baby mess, and whatever stupid reason the writers came up with that forced Regina to never learn how to dance, the writers and editors have actually done a commendable job of setting up Hook's death and rebirth as the Dark One, and also some other story details from "Birth." No, they aren't blatant reveals, but when you go back and watch certain scenes from 5A, at least you're given the sense of "Ohhh, so that's why they wrote the scene that way!" Just a few examples:

 

• When Hook goes to Emma's bug and says, "Don't make me summon you, Swan," Emma shows up and says, "You just did." The first time you watch this, you think Emma showed up because her Dark One senses were tingling and overheard Hook say her name. But now that we know Killian is also a Dark One at this point, he could have potentially used some of his own unknown powers to summon Emma to him, which would make Emma's "you just did" a very literal response.
• Later, when Emma excitedly shows Hook the house, we now know that Emma was all smiles because she's showing Hook the house that he picked out for her, and by living in the house Hook chose for them, we know that Emma is thinking about the newspaper ad and fully committed to her future with him.
• We also get foreshadowing of Dark One Hook being drawn towards the basement door that hides Excalibur, but hindsight tells us that Hook was being drawn towards the sword because his name was on it. (Albeit, glamoured at the time.)
• Hook tries a True Love's Kiss™ that fails, which could be a sign that something is wrong with Emma, but after watching 5x08, maybe it's a sign that something is also wrong with Hook.
• In this same scene, Hook says, "Sorry, Swan. This may be who you think you are, but this isn't who I am." Ironically, being the Dark One is exactly what he is now, which is why Emma kind of cocks her head and gives a slight smirk after he leaves. At first, I thought Emma's reaction was a bit strange, like she was happy to be the Dark One in that moment. But now, we can interpret her reaction as, "Oh, if you only knew that's precisely what you are."
• And of course, when Emma lashes out at Regina and says, "Now life is precious to you?" That can easily be interpreted as a callback to Regina being totally nonchalant about letting Hook die but forcing Emma to use dark magic to save Robin.
• The lunch date between Emma and Hook on his ship takes on an entirely different meaning now that we know Emma's motivation to become the Dark One. It was hard to empathize with Emma without knowing what she did, but now we can go back and watch this scene with a different lens.
• Before their horse ride, Hook says, "This is about you putting your faith in me, in our future." This obviously foreshadows the one thing that is preventing Emma from igniting Prometheus's flame in 5x08, and also Emma's main motivation for believing Hook can overcome the Dark One curse, justifying her decision to go against his dying wish. Emma responds, "You still think we can get back there, to Storybrooke and some white-picket-fence life?" More foreshadowing to the white picket fence house Hook picked out for her that she doesn't know about yet in this scene, but Hook does.
• During the flower meadow scene, Hook mentions sharing her burden. More foreshadowing of how he'll eventually share her burden as the Dark One.
• When Hook, Regina, Robin, and Belle break into Emma's house (and ironically Hook's), Regina is the first person to try and open the door and gets rejected by Emma's magic. Hook doesn't even attempt to open it because he thinks Emma doesn't want him there, but my best guess is that the writers purposely didn't have Hook touch the door knob because they wanted to hide the fact that this is technically his house, and as the Dark One, he might have been able to get past Emma's magical door lock spell.
• Similarly, the writers are careful to not have Hook touch Excalibur once they break into the basement. Regina stops him at the last second because she thinks he'd turn to dust or whatever if he touches it, but the writers were hiding the fact that he'd just get blasted backwards like Emma did earlier when she tried to pull it because he's also a Dark One.
• This foreshadowing isn't confirmed yet, but I'm fairly certain the writers were hinting at Hook being the Dark One in question when the gang got Merlin's voice mail. Merlin was very vague when he said, "The Dark One(s) found me," leaving it open to interpretation whether or not he meant one or two Dark Ones.
• Also, at the end of that scene, the camera ominously zooms in dramatically on Hook. The first time I watched this scene, I was taken aback by the abrupt directing decision to zoom in on only Hook during that line, and it seemed kind of random. But it makes total sense now because this whole mess was caused by his death. (This might even become an even more important scene if we find out it's actually Hook coming for Merlin in that voicemail.)
• There's also a very ironic line reading here and a hint to the audience when Hook asks, "What the hell did Emma do to him?" Hook is obviously talking about Merlin, but if you only look at the words being spoken in that scene and who the camera is focused on, it's all on Hook. What the hell did Emma do to him has a double meaning for what the hell Emma did to Hook in 5x08.

 

These are all possible clues, hints, and foreshadowing about the Dark One Hook twist, all previously laid out before "Birth" even aired. There's no way you can go back and do the same kind of subtle analysis of Zarian or the egg baby plot. This time, the writers actually put in some effort.

 

What's kind of sad is that the writers were able to pull off this huge twist because they set Hook's story bar so low in Season 4. After getting shafted in 4x11 and demoted to a background character with less screen time than Charming and Snow in 4B, I was positive he wouldn't play a big role in Season 5. Guess they fooled me.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Curio

[Camera One]

I don't consider Hook to be less significant than Snow and Charming in 4B.  They were given garbage, while Hook was given nicely written character scenes with Emma to bookend several important episodes, plus a well written centric with Ursula.  Quality over quantity any day.

 

That's an awesome list, and for once, it would be nice to rewatch and not be hit with a ton of inconsistency.  To me, a lot of those are not hints since I didn't think there was anything strange with how Hook was acting at any point.  However, they do show that finally, the writers planned something out but also took care that the individual actions and dialogue would still make sense in light of what they already knew - that Hook was a second Dark One all along.  After reading your list, I agree that rewatching this season could be potentially more fulfilling than previous seasons' twists.  The only thing I'll have to get over is the idea that if you don't *remember* you're the Dark One, you're not Dark at all.  Too bad they didn't just give Rumple amnesia every season.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Camera One

[HoodlumSheep]

That's an awesome list, and for once, it would be nice to rewatch and not be hit with a ton of inconsistency. To me, a lot of those are not hints since I didn't think there was anything strange with how Hook was acting at any point. However, they do show that finally, the writers planned something out but also took care that the individual actions and dialogue would still make sense in light of what they already knew - that Hook was a second Dark One all along. After reading your list, I agree that rewatching this season could be potentially more fulfilling than previous seasons' twists. The only thing I'll have to get over is the idea that if you don't *remember* you're the Dark One, you're not Dark at all. Too bad they didn't just give Rumple amnesia every season.

I think they did a decent job leaving hints too (or at least they seem leaps and bounds better than the Zarian incident). Plus, while it's unlikely, we might get the writer's might fill in some of the plot holes in the next 2 eps.

I have various interpretations about those plot holes, for the most part, that I find to be kind of believable, but at the end of the day it's a lot of fanwank. :(

Hopefully the writers don't try cramming in too much stuff in the next two episodes. I don' want a repeat of 4x11 or 4x22. Those eps were a bunch of choppy messes in my opinion.

[coops]

I'm really hoping all the stuff we learned about dark ones (e.g having previous dark ones voices in their heads, not being able to sleep) and why Hook didn't suffer from it is explained.

Unless they have a good reason that can explain they missed a trick with having some sort of scene where Emma finds Hook wondering the streets at night and asks what he's up to only for him to shrug and say he couldn't sleep before delving into one of their intense conversations. It would have been the perfect subtle hint, a seemingly throw away comment, but the writers are really stingy with giving away clues, we get like none.

[HoodlumSheep]

^ the problem is, is that they have the perfect opportunity for a cop out or explain it away with random headcanons/excuses. The concept of 2 dark ones at the same time is entirey new (to us and the characters). Because Hook became the DO under special/weird circumstances, the original rules may not exactly apply.

I wish they would explain some stuff though. I'm fine with the crazy headcanons I've created for the situation, but I would like some clarification at least, even if my ideas are completely wrong.

[BoPeeps]

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/11/12/once-upon-summer-camp-horror-series

 

The Creators have a new shiny toy.

Hmmm. Well well well.

Indeed.

[Mari]

Yup.

There have been shows when I've been horrified that the showrunners would be diverted by a shimmering new obect that I wasn't interested in.

 

Once is not on that list.

[Mathius]

If Once is renewed, can A&E please just work on their other show full-time and new showrunners be given the reign for Once? Probably not, but I can dream, can't I?

[Camera One]

There have been shows when I've been horrified that the showrunners would be diverted by a shimmering new obect that I wasn't interested in.

 

True.  But too bad I don't trust any of the other writers on this show either.  It's like they're all clones.

[KAOS Agent]

When given the chance to run the Wonderland spinoff, I think Jane did a good job creating a cohesive story. I've said for a while that the show needs Adam & Eddy to be the big creative guys with a detail oriented executive showrunner to rein in some of the tendencies to be distracted by the newest shiny object. Let the creativity run wild and then have someone nicely cull it into a cohesive narrative.

[daxx]

I would be pleased if Jane took over the show running.

[Mathius]

Jane was only one half of the equation on Wonderland, though. Zack Estrin also helped make that story work.

 

Also, when it comes to the mother show, Jane is a good scripter, but as a writer there is too much evidence that she is too closely aligned with Adam and Eddy's vision.  So yeah, I don't think there'd be any improvement if she took over.

 

True.  But too bad I don't trust any of the other writers on this show either.  It's like they're all clones.

 

That's because all the cool writers were only around for the first three seasons and gradually dropped out.  The only decent one left, IMO, is David Goodman, and there's only so much he can do with showrunners like Adam and Eddy.

 

One of said cool writers, Ian Goldberg, is co-showrunner on the new horror show, so I hope it'll be good.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Mathius

[HoodlumSheep]

When given the chance to run the Wonderland spinoff, I think Jane did a good job creating a cohesive story. I've said for a while that the show needs Adam & Eddy to be the big creative guys with a detail oriented executive showrunner to rein in some of the tendencies to be distracted by the newest shiny object. Let the creativity run wild and then have someone nicely cull it into a cohesive narrative.

Can you read minds? I wasn't thinking of Jane in particular, but I'd be fine with them tapping some of the writers from Wonderland. The writing for Wonderland was a lot tighter and cohesive and they had a better handle on the rules of magic. like, there were actual prices to pay for a lot of the stuff compared to Once's spotty record.

Edited November 19, 2015 by HoodlumSheep

[Camera One]

Jane has her moments of brilliance (but so do A&E).  To me, she's as bad as A&E in her Regina worship and skewed moral take.  "The Evil Queen", "Bleeding Through", and the audio commentary for "Mother" says it all (add the horrible dialogue for "White Out", not to mention "Best Laid Plans" and the genesis of fated love in "Quite in Common Fairy").  Yes, she may not have been the originator of the main plots, but she has been a co-conspirator and a cheerleader.  She's no more detail oriented.  She has shown more interest in dueling shippers than Emma/parents.  No thanks.

 

"Once Upon a Time in Wonderland" had major pacing issues in the first half, and this was already an easier job of starting a series and creating the *first* flashback for each character.  I'm not sure Jane had a much bigger role running the show than the rest of them.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Camera One

[Mathius]

To me, she's as bad as A&E in her Regina worship and skewed moral take.  "The Evil Queen", "Bleeding Through", and the audio commentary for "Mother" says it all

 

What did she say in the commentary?  

 

Also, Jane has a Rumple worship too that A&E don't seem to share.  She essentially created Rumbelle.

[Camera One]

Nothing nefarious... just squeeing about Regina, since the commentary was her and Lana.  

 

Good point about the Rumple worship.  

[KAOS Agent]

I wasn't nominating Jane to take over, just stating that she has experience and it wasn't horrible. I guess it depends on how involved A&E plan to be in this new show. Perhaps Once could get a day to day showrunner who actually likes heroes and doesn't think that they're boring. That would be throwing the cat among the pigeons. I kind of think the writers figure they have one more season of this show left, so maybe bringing in a dissenting voice would shake things up a bit.

[Souris]

Jane has her moments of brilliance (but so do A&E).  To me, she's as bad as A&E in her Regina worship and skewed moral take.  

 

Absolutely. I don't think anybody who isn't a Regina stan would be happy if Jane became the show runner. She is a HUGE HUGE HUGE Regina fan. If you thought Regina got a lot of focus now….