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

[Guest]

Here's a quote from an interview with A&E that made me laugh (the article is very spoilery, so I won't link it):

 

"We left Belle and Rumple in a place at the end of the midseason cliffhanger where that relationship was evolving and having its own new obstacle [Rumple’s Dark One status] that we’ll eventually put in its way."

 

Okay, but since when is Rumpel being the Dark One a new obstacle? Hasn't that always been the obstacle from the very beginning? They do recognize how stupid they sound here, right? His story is the ultimate retread for this show. It never changes, but they seem to think it's new and interesting every time.

 

Its only different if Belle reacts differently.  Its going to be extremely difficult to pretend that Belle is a viable character if she still believes in Rumple and their love once she finds out he chose to be the Dark One again.  There is a difference between struggling to overcome the Darkness.  Belle can makes excuses for that,  Sort of (it still annoys me).  Its much more difficult for Belle to stay with him when his heart was wiped clean, he was free of the curse, and he chose to be the Dark One again especially with what he did to Hook/Emma in the process.

 

I fully expect Belle to continue to make excuses as she is the ultimate enabler.  But its different in that its proof that Rumpel isn't trying to be a better man and that was was the excuse Belle always used.  Although I agree its not interesting but mostly because Belle never reacts like a normally.

[Faemonic]

TV writers face a couple of different issues that novelists don't. One is that the length has to be very precise to fit into a particular slot with room for a certain number of commercials, and it's not always in the writer's control how long things will run. Even in a kind of book that has a pretty regimented length, like category romance (Harlequin/Silhouette), you still have about 5,000 words of leeway to fit within the length, and you (and maybe the editor) are in control of the length.

 

In TV, not only does it have to be a certain length, but when you're writing a script, you can't be totally sure how long it will really take to play out, and you can be screwed up if an actor or director decide to insert a piece of business in between lines of dialogue, or if they play out a scene in a way different than you had in mind with your mental timing.

That's what I was thinking, too. On the other hand...

If I get to the end and realize I need something to be set up in order to get to the resolution I want, I can go back and put it in. TV writers don't have that luxury. I'm not sure how far ahead they write, but I'm pretty sure the first episode of the season had aired before they'd done all the writing for the arc finale. They couldn't have realized in writing the finale that they weren't going to have time to wrap up Merida's story, and then gone back and cut her from the premiere. There's very, very limited ability to go back and fix things in earlier scripts.

...more detailed outlines? I read about how some writers are Planners and others who are Pantsers (seat-of-their-pants, flying by), the latter justified in one case because outlining actually takes so much creative energy out of some people that they won't have any left over to actually write the thing...which I can totally understand. Maybe that's just this room's creative process. But, that sort of impressionistic blurriness would be better-suited to setting and character driven series with lots of bottle episodes. In a work that's so plot-driven, especially one that utilizes flashbacks to the past, I feel like there ought to be a tighter plot, and that better continuity generally comes from better organization and planning.

 

After that, the other writers already know the flow from point A to point Z, and ideally would be able to focus on details like character voice. The development and relationships might be part of A-Z points, but then again as a writer I sometimes have a foggy idea of the general direction I want something to go, and sometimes have a darling specific scene that Stephen King advises other writers to kill, so I wouldn't know how that works with a whole room of people to juggle with, followed by executive notes and directors and editors also throwing balls at everyone, and somewhere in the periphery are actors voicing their headcanons of the characters and a lot of angry fans. And deadlines.

 

But I'm still going to facepalm and groan whenever the writers who are also producers who are also showrunners essentially assert something like how offscreen deleted scenes that weren't filmed because they weren't scripted...are canonical...because how tightly can their hands be tied with this medium?

[Mathius]

General ideas were changed between S2 and 3, it's why S2 was all over the place and S3 had a very rocky transition, well until S5.

 

Yeah, I know.  But you said you thought the Home Office idea was changed between S2 and S3 too, and I just disproved that, it was changed during S2.  How could it have been changed between seasons when the freaking S2 finale spelled out "the Home Office is Pan and the Lost Boys" at the end, with Adam and Eddy saying as much at the time it was premiering?

 

Greg and Tamara, however, probably would have had a role to play after the ruse was discovered (I think Tamara's actress confirmed this), but that did get changed between S2 and S3 because such a large amount of viewers hated them.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Mathius

[Shanna Marie]

...more detailed outlines? I read about how some writers are Planners and others who are Pantsers (seat-of-their-pants, flying by), the latter justified in one case because outlining actually takes so much creative energy out of some people that they won't have any left over to actually write the thing...which I can totally understand. Maybe that's just this room's creative process. But, that sort of impressionistic blurriness would be better-suited to setting and character driven series with lots of bottle episodes. In a work that's so plot-driven, especially one that utilizes flashbacks to the past, I feel like there ought to be a tighter plot, and that better continuity generally comes from better organization and planning.

I don't see how you can work in television as a Pantser -- your earlier chapters are broadcast before the writing is done, and you have to work as a team, which requires planning. You get a mess if everyone is flying by the seat of the pants but the pieces have to fit together. I don't even know how a pure Pantser could manage to write a detailed, ongoing series (that's a reason why it's taking GRRM a decade or so per book -- he makes it up on the fly, but now he's stuck with things he established twenty years ago and can't change).

 

By the time you're this far into a TV series, you shouldn't be so off in your planning that you drop an entire major plotline at the last second because it doesn't fit. You know enough about your actors to know how they're likely to perform things, and you know how the action and CGI sequences are likely to play out, so your script timing should be fairly accurate. I don't know how you'd get to the point of shooting things for an episode and then just have to table that plot line because between the script and the editing, you ran out of time. Some of that could have been fixed earlier, but in this case it was like they introduced the problem later. Did we know before that Merida one-off that she had a vengeance thing for Arthur? That added one more plot element to resolve, within the last three episodes of the arc.

 

But then I also don't see how you could plan and still end up with the typical arc structure of spending most of the arc with the characters running in circles, until the last minute when the thing that wasn't working against the villain before suddenly does work against the villain. They write like they're reverse-engineering from the conclusion, and everything between the setup and the conclusion is a lot of "and then stuff happens that leads to this happening" handwaving.

[Camera One]

Did we know before that Merida one-off that she had a vengeance thing for Arthur? That added one more plot element to resolve, within the last three episodes of the arc.

 

Maybe the only purpose of that was to explain why Merida was close to Camelot and got swept up with The Curse.  

 

I don't see how you can work in television as a Pantser -- your earlier chapters are broadcast before the writing is done, and you have to work as a team, which requires planning. 

 

But then I also don't see how you could plan and still end up with the typical arc structure of spending most of the arc with the characters running in circles, until the last minute when the thing that wasn't working against the villain before suddenly does work against the villain. They write like they're reverse-engineering from the conclusion, and everything between the setup and the conclusion is a lot of "and then stuff happens that leads to this happening" handwaving.

 

I think they are combinations of Planners and Pantsers, and their process is the "reverse-engineering" you mentioned.  What they do plan is the big "twist".  In 5A, that was Emma becoming Dark to save Hook and Hook was also a Dark One.  They knew they wanted to have everyone go to the Underworld and they wanted Rumple re-established as The Dark One going into 5B.  Everything else would have been Pantsing, and filler, up until the penultimate episode when the twist is revealed.  To them, since they're not writing a character-driven story, it makes no difference what Snow/Charming, or Robin Hood, or Belle, are actually doing within the half-season, since Emma was going to stay dark until the finale when Hook sacrifices himself, and nothing else was going to work anyway.  In fact, they needed to go out of their way to make Emma seem "dark" (turning Merida into a Bear, so Belle might be killed?) so they could drag out the reveal.

[Shanna Marie]

I would say that reverse engineering isn't really a pantser thing because that's a kind of planning if you have the end in sight. Most Pantser writers I know just start with a character or situation and see what unfolds organically, and that tends to be very character-driven. But what we may be seeing on this show is natural Pantsers forced by the nature of episodic television to function as plotters. You can't really be a Pantser when you have to create a story that's going to fill 11 episodes of about 42 minutes each, written by multiple people. That requires some degree of planning. But a lot of Pantsers lose the thrill of discovery and creation once they know what's going to happen and how it will end, so if they outline a story, they lose interest in it and no longer want to write it. With these guys, it may be that they get the thrill of creation from coming up with those big twists, but once they come up with the twists, they don't really care anymore and want to rush on to the next big twist. As a result, the writing in between the big moments is just kind of slapped together halfheartedly -- who cares what happens as long as we get to the big moment, and then there's no lingering on the new reality created by the big moment, no developing the new status quo because we have to rush on to the next cool twist.

 

But that still doesn't explain the weird pacing in the latest arc, where they got to the end and ran out of time to actually resolve all the stories. I also would have liked to see at least a little of Emma's post-Hook world. Give her time to miss him -- see her having to resolve the Camelot and Merida stuff without Hook there as her support system. Let her walk through the Jolly Roger and notice things that remind her of him, and all the while be increasingly aware of the sense of the dagger. Maybe meanwhile let the others become aware that they might actually miss Hook -- like her parents being unable to reach out to Emma and realizing that they'd usually send Hook to talk to her. But I guess that's boring character stuff, even if it would have made the motivation stronger. They don't seem to care much about motivation, though. They just move their chess pieces around as the story dictates without worrying about what people would do or what these particular people would do.

[KingOfHearts]

'Once Upon a Time' Creators Reveal That Prince Charming Was Set to Die in First Episode and Other Secrets

 

KITSIS Disney has people who pro­tect the brand. The very first image of our pilot was when we put a sword into Snow White's hands, which we didn't realize was the first time that that had happened. We had this meeting with the people at Disney, and we said, "Well, in the original movie, she went into a dwarf's house and cleaned up, but we wouldn't want our daugh­ters [to do that.] That's not the kind of Snow White they want to see."

 

This tidbit makes me wonder. When does Disney step in and say "hold up"? I'm surprised they didn't when Snow White condoned adultery.

 

 

Channing's note was, "For a show about hope, it is a pretty bleak ending."

Interesting how Channing was the one who suggested Charming not die.

Edited March 4, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Curio]

Channing's note was, "For a show about hope, it is a pretty bleak ending."

 

Can Channing give them that nudge again?

[Mathius]

LMAO at "that's not the Snow White they want to see", meaning they'd rather see a badass Snow White would could wield a weapon.  Well then, why did you get rid of that Snow White?  When is the last time Snow has held a weapon or done something remotely badass?  She does stuff even more demeaning than just cleaning the Dwarfs' house...like constantly kissing the ass of the freaking Evil Queen while neglecting if not downright emotionally abusing her own daughter!  

Edited March 4, 2016 by Mathius

[Curio]

With these guys, it may be that they get the thrill of creation from coming up with those big twists, but once they come up with the twists, they don't really care anymore and want to rush on to the next big twist. As a result, the writing in between the big moments is just kind of slapped together halfheartedly -- who cares what happens as long as we get to the big moment, and then there's no lingering on the new reality created by the big moment, no developing the new status quo because we have to rush on to the next cool twist.

 

I was reading an interview with Robert Eggers (director/writer of "The Witch"), and it was so refreshing to see a writer say, "I don't like twists." In that movie, they gave away one of the big "twists" right at the beginning, so as an audience member you're thrown through a loop because you're sitting there thinking, "Wait a second...they already revealed that? I thought we wouldn't figure that out until the very end of the movie." But what made the reveal so great is that the rest of the movie got to focus more on the character drama and the dramatic tension increases because the audience already knows what the stakes are.

That got me to thinking about how Adam & Eddy seem to live and die by the big "twist." With the way they craft their story arcs, I don't think they could come up with a straightforward character-driven story that revealed its twist at the very beginning and still make it work. I'm imagining how the Dark Swan arc would have worked if they followed Eggers's plan and revealed Dark Hook right away in the first episode. Would that have given them more opportunities to focus on the characters instead of constantly giving the audience red herrings that seemed to eat up countless minutes? Would the reveal at the end of "Birth" still be as dramatic? Do you sacrifice the big twist at the end of the arc in order to make the middle more interesting?

 

(Then again, I guess they kind of tried this tactic already in 3B with Zelena being revealed as the bad guy right away, but instead of using that initial reveal to their advantage, it just made the other characters look dumb for not suspecting the new person in town who wears a giant green brooch.)

 

I also would have liked to see at least a little of Emma's post-Hook world. Give her time to miss him -- see her having to resolve the Camelot and Merida stuff without Hook there as her support system. Let her walk through the Jolly Roger and notice things that remind her of him, and all the while be increasingly aware of the sense of the dagger. Maybe meanwhile let the others become aware that they might actually miss Hook -- like her parents being unable to reach out to Emma and realizing that they'd usually send Hook to talk to her. But I guess that's boring character stuff, even if it would have made the motivation stronger.

 

Yet again, Once Upon a Time in Offscreenville is much more intriguing than what was actually shown.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Curio

[Faemonic]

Adam & Eddy seem to live and die by the big "twist." With the way they craft their story arcs, I don't think they could come up with a straightforward character-driven story that revealed its twist at the very beginning and still make it work. I'm imagining how the Dark Swan arc would have worked if they followed Eggers's plan and revealed Dark Hook right away in the first episode. Would that have given them more opportunities to focus on the characters instead of constantly giving the audience red herrings that seemed to eat up countless minutes? Would the reveal at the end of "Birth" still be as dramatic? Do you sacrifice the big twist at the end of the arc in order to make the middle more interesting?

 

(Then again, I guess they kind of tried this tactic already in 3B with Zelena being revealed as the bad guy right away, but instead of using that initial reveal to their advantage, it just made the other characters look dumb for not suspecting the new person in town who wears a giant green brooch.)

I don't know when they lost it. I remember when Peter Pan told Hook that Nealfire was still alive, and the fan reaction was, "Oh nooo are we going to spend 3/4ths of next episode if not the rest of the season with broody Hook full of angst and secretzzz?" Nope, he told Snow first thing next episode. Hooray, we can move it along. That might have been what's usually dragged out on television, but it just so happened that wasn't the twist that this room wanted to drag out: Papa Pan was, but I was fine with that (even though some Dearies might've gotten bored with Rumple weeping over a doll for three episodes before Regina force-chokes his hallucinations.)

 

Learning from other writer's mistakes, I guess the question of whether there's a good story here is...if you deflate the twist, is there still more to it than that?

 

A lot of suggestions I read about the arcs on these forums suggest entire overhauls of what had been established in the arc structure. Let everybody be memory-wiped under the Zelena Administration of Storybrooke, except for Emma and Hook (and/or Neal, maybe he wouldn't have had to die in this scenario.) Then we return to S1, but the other way around. Or, have Emma try to pretend to be normal instead of Distractingly Antagonistic Dark Swan, which would not be a good plan to remain inconspicuous.

 

 

Just like it's difficult to discuss the relationships on the level of the characters as people, because it's so obvious that they're just puppets at the end of strings that some writer is muahahaing over...it's difficult to accept the plots whose be-all end-all is The Twist To Be Revealed.

 

Yet again, Once Upon a Time in Offscreenville is much more intriguing than what was actually shown.

 

I've been re-reading Aristotle's Poetics and he talks a lot about what should be onscreen and offscreen. I still don't get it, which is strange because he's so clear and systematic about everything else. But just watching this show, I kind of get a feel that there's some very important difference between, "Aww, but it would've been nice to see..." Rumple bonding with Henry and that pep talk during White Out, or Hook telling David about Liam on the hike back even though they had a relationship-changing field trip together for a whole episode already. And then there is, "What. Seriously, that should have been onscreen or else it just looks sloppy." Heroes and Villains was not a well-structured episode.

 

I also wonder how it would have come off, the Merida versus Arthur subplot, had we not known that they'd scripted and filmed something that couldn't make the cut? Maybe just knowing Merida's motivations for being nearby Camelot when the Dark Curse took hold would have been enough, but leaving the Lancelot-Guinevere-Arthur triangle unresolved wouldn't have been enough, or else what was the point of even doing Arthurian legend.

[myril]

Something Kitsis said in the THR interview mentioned above:

 

We've done a Franz Kafka reference before and Cuckoo's Nest, but our audience really likes the fairy tales.

 

Does anyone here have an idea, what the Franz Kafka reference could have been? I just can't come up with anything.

I never minded them doing a wild mix of fictional characters and tales, twisting the stuff, but to me most of it doesn't look that much twisted at all, and increasingly less over the seasons. At best maybe it's somewhat twisted if your knowledge or focus is mostly limited to Disney tales. Even DC and Marvel comics have a richer world to offer if you go beyond they mainstream characters and big heroes. Certainly it's often not that much of a twist what this show shows if you have dug more into tales, the different retelling and variations tales often have experienced over time and in different places, and look around at mythologies, tales and fairy tales from all over the world. Focusing so much on the big Disney icons and few other pop-cultural fictional heroes is in my eyes a limited view on the rich world of tales, and I think their imagination shows some limits, maybe because of that.

 

It's pretty much a childlike approach that they are describing in the interview. They are grabbing the next best toys or the at the moment most favorite toys and throw them together in some wild ride of imagination without much of a thought. That could be okay, but I think at least a part of the audience struggles with that concept, the show as a silly show for rather silly entertainment with some aww!geek! moments and soap opera like romances. I once thought the show could have been a lot more and so got excited about it, but by now I think, it was never meant to be anything else but silly entertainment. I am not sure though if the writers even themselves have settled with that when reading that bit about a Kafka reference. Whatever they are thinking they are trying, the show is not sophisticated enough to make it as much of an intellectual pleasure as it might be as simple emotional one. The best these writers could do IMO for everyone's sanity is stop claiming that this show is about something more than superficial fairy tale-ish entertainment, stop saying that it's about hope or love or whatever.

 

By the way, what does Horowitz mean with "cul-de-sac"? No, seriously, I am wondering, guess it's quite sure not dead end, although that would make even sort of sense seeing the dead end of character development the show has become. Does he use it as another expression for (surprise) bag, or is it another way to say, that they pull things out of their butts?

Edited March 4, 2016 by myril

[Shanna Marie]

That got me to thinking about how Adam & Eddy seem to live and die by the big "twist." With the way they craft their story arcs, I don't think they could come up with a straightforward character-driven story that revealed its twist at the very beginning and still make it work.

I think a lot of their problem is that they seem to have decided that surprise is the only real value in storytelling, so it's all surprise twists, all the time. It's like the old saying about how when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. But if everything is a surprise twist, it gets to the point where nothing is really a surprise twist. Twists don't work without some setup, and if you're lurching from surprise to surprise, you don't get the setup that makes the revelation of the surprise satisfying.

 

So, there are two things at work here. One is that there are other storytelling tools in the arsenal. Not everything has to be a surprise. Process can also be interesting -- that's the basis for the entire procedural genre. It can be fascinating watching people uncover clues and untangle puzzles, and you miss something if you just skip that part to get to the surprise revelation. There can still be twists, but it can be just as fun to watch the characters figure out the twist for themselves as it is to have the surprise twist sprung upon us. So, say, what if we'd watched Hook investigating what Emma was up to and he figured out the Dark One thing for himself, with the clues piling up, rather than us getting the surprise flashback? Emotional impact can also be the main point of interest, where what matters more than the surprise revelation is the impact it has on the characters. That's where we were with the 4A finale. We knew Rumple wouldn't be allowed to succeed and that Hook would be saved. What we were interested in was seeing how Belle would react to the betrayal, and although we saw her actions, it felt like we skipped some important steps in not getting to see her really put it all together and not seeing her initial, immediate reaction to the truth. We were interested in seeing how Emma reacted to Hook being in jeopardy, after all her talk about fear of losing someone else. We wanted to see her learn that he was in danger (maybe figuring it out for herself, with all those clues) and wanted to see her react to that. We were interested in seeing how Rumple would cope with suddenly being utterly powerless. What would he go through now that he had some of what he wanted -- no longer stuck in Storybrooke, no longer controlled by the dagger -- but without the main thing he wanted, the power? How did he pull himself together? In the name of surprise, they skipped the parts that were more interesting.

 

And then there's the fact that their surprise twists aren't always really that twisty. Surprise isn't always a good thing if something is surprising only because it comes out of the blue. Regina suddenly able to do light magic for no real reason isn't a good surprise. We needed to know more about the difference between light and dark magic, whether it's a specific action or says something about the person, whether it's something Regina had tried, whether it required her to change something about herself. Was there any struggle involved? If something is only surprising because the setup was skipped entirely, it's not a good surprise. The reaction to a surprise should be more like "Oooooh, now I see it!" not "Really?"

[daxx]

I often wonder if she was able to conjure up white magic because Robin, her soulmate was holding her heart...

[andromeda331]

More likely white magic suddenly realized what hard life Regina had and how much she has suffered and

gave it to her.

[Faemonic]

I often wonder if she was able to conjure up white magic because Robin, her soulmate, was holding her heart...

That would have made both logical sense in-world and emotional sense in the character-plot continuum. But if the writers didn't think it, they didn't show it, so it would remain headcanon (or fanon, if you're lucky) rather than canon. Like Rumple's S4 awfulness being partially motivated by post-Zelena PTSD, or Hook's guardian angel Clarence.

 

My headcanon before this was how Dark Magic as a force was actually unrefined Light Magic, so, naturally the second most powerful Dark mage in Storybrooke would become the most comparatively powerful Light mage if she could figure out the refining process. They've certainly shown it working the other way around, with the aim to corrupt Savior Magic and how to actually corrupt Grail Magic.

 

But I really can't believe by now that there's any sort of magic system in the Show Bible. It's just made up as they go along based on what's needed, which would work much better if this show were surrealist or absurdist, but it's not.

[Curio]

Does anyone here have an idea, what the Franz Kafka reference could have been? I just can't come up with anything.

I don't remember them ever name-dropping Franz Kafka on the show, but maybe there was some reference to one of his works during the Isaac/Author plot in 4B. (An isolated and depressed Jewish writer who hates his corporate job is suddenly shown a fantastical world by Merlin's Apprentice. The Apprentice gives Isaac the thankless and dangerous task of writing the history of fairy tales, but his new godly powers eventually drive him mad and destroy his life when the fairy tale characters believe he's responsible for their predetermined fates. The Author could have been Adam & Eddy's attempt at a Kafka homage.)

 

Or maybe the entire show is one big Kafkaesque experiment. Emma is an isolated and depressed woman living in the real world, working a corporate job, when suddenly she is thrust into a fantastical world where fairy tale characters are real and no one realizes how miserable their cursed lives are. Eventually, Emma is brainwashed to believe living in this small, boring, and dangerous town is her happy ending, even though it is constantly under attack by villains and is ran by morally corrupt magicians who were not democratically elected into their bureaucratic positions. Eventually, Emma is brainwashed into becoming friends with these morally corrupt magicians who were responsible for her terrible life. Emma is further brainwashed into believing she is responsible for everyone else's happy endings, and even though her happy ending is always being pushed away, she helps these people who rarely thank her for her services. Even her own family relies on her for her services regularly. The moment she turns into a giant insect the Dark One, her family is quick to assume the worst and quickly forget about all the good things she's done and believe she needs to be stopped. The one person in her life who believes in her the most dies in her arms. Twice. Everyone in Storybrooke believes in the hope of happy endings, but more often than not, they are tortured by mythical monsters and villains instead. And when these people are not being tortured, they sleepwalk through the doldrums of Storybrooke society, easily forgetting the fact that they technically live in a dystopian society where the Mayor was self-appointed and the entire town's decisions are made by a small group of royal family members. The Storybrooke citizens can't ever leave town or else there are disastrous consequences, so everyone tries to forget how claustrophobic and isolated they really are by pretending life in Storybrooke is better than their original lives in Mysthaven because they just happen to have electricity. As an audience member, we don't even know if these people have lived happy lives for longer than a few minutes. The show gives the impression that six weeks of happiness occured when Rumple got kicked out of town, but that also could have been an illusion. Much like a tree falling in a forest, if we don't see their happiness on screen, who's to say that it actually existed?

 

Apparently, this show isn't about hope, it's about isolation, depression, and futility.

 

By the way, what does Horowitz mean with "cul-de-sac"? No, seriously, I am wondering, guess it's quite sure not dead end, although that would make even sort of sense seeing the dead end of character development the show has become. Does he use it as another expression for (surprise) bag, or is it another way to say, that they pull things out of their butts?

 

I think Adam just meant that when he and Eddy created the show, they were interested in how different fairy tale characters would interact with each other if they all happened to live on the same street (or cul-de-sac).

Edited March 5, 2016 by Curio

[Mathius]

No, it's a "Disney cul-de-sac" in that Disney is the street, OUAT is the cul-de-sac (a branch-off in the street leading to a dead-end), and every so often Disney characters from the street go to the cul-de-sac and then leave.  It's a metaphor.

 

BTW, how has this slipped everyone's notice? From the fan Q&A

 

KITSIS AND HOROWITZ RESPOND: “We were the first show ever to put a sword in Snow White’s hand,” Kitsis says. “The very first image of the pilot, after the iconic wakeup, was the Evil Queen breaking into the wedding, and then you see Snow White grab her husband’s sword and stand in front of him. That’s in the DNA of the show — strong females overcoming adversity is exactly what the show does. I think there’s no more perfect example of that than the Evil Queen, who has, over 100 episodes, found herself now friends with the very heroes she cursed. We see her constantly get knocked down but for us, it’s how she gets back up that’s most interesting to write about.”

 

There you have it.  To these two, there is "no more perfect an example" of a "strong female overcoming adversity" than Regina, who overcame adversity through becoming friends with her victims.  I just....I can't, I really can't.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Mathius

[Camera One]

After all these years, how can their quotes STILL constantly up the ante in the WTF department?  

[Actionmage]

Eddy then added, “Our characters like to repeat their own mistakes . . .

 

No, I don't believe the characters do. They go through painful situations, for them, and then more and more, ad naseum.  I understand the idea of continuing to get in your own way because people do it all the time. Yet, these fictional people continuing to make mistakes gets tiring and, as a viewer, boring. If the characters never "learn" anything, why continue watching, especially if TPTB find continued not-learning imminently watchable?

 

Someone over on Arrow has said in the press the same thing about their leading character! Essentially, "We like dumb Ol' Oliver; he's fun."

 

It's lazy and wasting your audience's time, imo. I get that all your characters can't have pay-off quickly, but you can reasonably have them understand what they want, work toward  that goal, have a stumble or two, then get to the goal. There is more drama to be mined in staying or an achieve goal/ lose it/ regain it arc.  But A&E are about Regina getting her just-

 

Mathius just posted and... I need a minute.

[YaddaYadda]

We see her constantly get knocked down but for us, it’s how she gets back up that’s most interesting to write about.

 

Really? By woe-meeing, and trying to find Authors to change her story instead of actually working at it?

 

Do they not know what they have written?

[Camera One]

That’s in the DNA of the show — strong females overcoming adversity is exactly what the show does.

 

When was the last time Mary Margaret was shown to be "strong" or "overcoming adversity"?  It's pretty pathetic when you have to go back to the PILOT to think of a relevant example.  They'd probably say "The Broken Kingdom" but I don't count it if at the end of the day, the situation got even worse and you got magical dust thrown in your face because the plan failed.

 

I think there’s no more perfect example of that than the Evil Queen, who has, over 100 episodes, found herself now friends with the very heroes she cursed. We see her constantly get knocked down but for us, it’s how she gets back up that’s most interesting to write about.”

 

How is she constantly getting knocked down?  With the Robin/Marion/Zelena crap?  Or do they include Regina being criticized for her innocent lasagna and being left out of the family dinner?  

 

How she responds?  Like considering murdering Marion in the 4A premiere?  They claim to love Regina but they give her the LEAST interesting response by reverting back to Evil Queen-ness.

 

And lastly, who cares about the VICTIMS getting back up after being knocked down, eh?

[Mathius]

The scariest thing? A&E aren't even the dumbest people in that article. That honor goes to the girl named Eva (wow, that's an embarrassing name for a fan of this show to have given how the character named that is portrayed) who said this:

 

"[Regina] could give me the best advice in how to handle and how not to handle things in my life.”

 

Just...just let the absurdity of that statement sink in for a minute.

[Rumsy4]

 

How is she constantly getting knocked down?

 

Because you know, every time Regina's murderous plans get thwarted, she becomes sad, and we all know Regina deserves all the Happiness she can get out of destroying other people's lives. 

[Camera One]

LOL, I just read the whole "article". 

 

Question: Who would you want as your neighbor in Storybrooke?

 

KITSIS AND HOROWITZ RESPOND: “I think our characters would be a lot of fun to hang out with or live next door to,” Kitsis says. “I think Regina would be great — she’s the mayor, and so that would be very secure.”

 

Horowitz has a different idea: “I would want to live next door to Mr. Gold, because I have a feeling there’s no crime on his street.”

 

Of course they would choose those two.  I'm sure you'd feel very "secure", even though she probably destroyed your life.  And there would be "no crime" except those he personally committed.

[Mari]

Do they not know what they have written?

Based on the math and the continuity issues, I think the correct answer is "No.  Absolutely not."

 

(Waves hand.  Been a while--winter's definitely been . . . extra wintery this year.)

[Serena]

The scariest thing? A&E aren't even the dumbest people in that article. That honor goes to the girl named Eva (wow, that's an embarrassing name for a fan of this show to have given how the character named that is portrayed) who said this:

 

"[Regina] could give me the best advice in how to handle and how not to handle things in my life.”

 

Just...just let the absurdity of that statement sink in for a minute.

I facepalmed and then I laughed and then I facepalmed again.

 

But maybe she means "because then I'd do the exact opposite of what she told me to do"

Edited March 6, 2016 by Serena

[Shanna Marie]

Y'all are way overthinking the Kafka reference. It's probably the dark fairy dust turning the trolls into cockroaches. That's about the level where these guys work -- touch upon it superficially and then congratulate themselves for the reference.

[Curio]

"Hey! Did you see that awesome Dostoyevsky reference in last night's episode?"

"No..."

"There happened to be a 2-second shot of The Brothers Karamazov on Hook's bookshelf!"

"Oh..."

[Mari]

Yeah.

 

Desperately hoping not.  Bugphobic--especially cockroaches.  I've skipped episodes of some of my favorite stuff because of a bug focus.  

 

 

Yes.  I'm a wimp.  Possibly with more issues than Regina.  Don't care.  Bugs are disgusting.  And everywhere.  Like germs.

[tennisgurl]

"Your questions are irrelevant" 

-The Writers of Once 

 

Its like the writers were coming straight through the screen to yell at us "stop thinking, stop questioning our ridiculous choices, and just accept what we say, no matter how batshit" 

[KingOfHearts]

"Your questions are irrelevant"

-The Writers of Once

Its like the writers were coming straight through the screen to yell at us "stop thinking, stop questioning our ridiculous choices, and just accept what we say, no matter how batshit"

Resistance is futile! 2 + 2 = 5!

[YaddaYadda]

Resistance is futile! 2 + 2 = 5!

 

What we wanna know is how and why?

 

Show your work, damn it!

[Curio]

Someone on Tumblr posted a link to a writing workshop PDF aimed at teaching 5-12 grade students basic screenwriting techniques that's based on Jennifer's new movie coming out, Albion. I was curious and skimmed over it quick, and had to chuckle at this part:

 

Screenwriters are careful when they use flashback so they don't confuse the audience. If there are too many flashbacks, it is hard to follow the action of the movie. Flashbacks are also used only for important ideas.

 

Apparently, OUAT's writers need to take advice from a writing workshop aimed at children. 

Edited March 20, 2016 by Curio

[Mari]

Ha! 

 

I know someone who quit watching OUaT simply because she was tired of trying to keep all the flashbacks straight.  She moved on to Shonda Rhimes shows, where she (presumably--I don't watch them) doesn't have to work so hard to keep the timeline straight.

[Camera One]

That was a major complaint about "Lost" too... I love complexity so I don't find flashbacks confusing at all.  I thought the funniest part of the statement was "flashbacks are also used only for important ideas".  You mean you don't you use them as time filler?!  Or pointless teasers à la the Merlin theater scene?   Sacré bleu!

Edited March 21, 2016 by Camera One

[Mari]

There's been discussion in the other threads about why Regina rarely seems to have her emotionally significant scenes with Robin.

We know that Robin happened after Parilla lobbied for a love interest for Regina--I believe she's alluded to that in interviews. Is there lack of Robin/Regina time simply because A &E don't see a need for him?

[Rumsy4]

There's been discussion in the other threads about why Regina rarely seems to have her emotionally significant scenes with Robin.

We know that Robin happened after Parilla lobbied for a love interest for Regina--I believe she's alluded to that in interviews. Is there lack of Robin/Regina time simply because A &E don't see a need for him?

 

Quite likely. Rumbelle was expanded after the positive fan reaction to Skin Deep, and Belle spends 80% of the time sleeping or unconscious (even last night's episode had her asleep for one of  two scenes). A&E clearly don't know what to do with Robin anymore.

[Free]

"Your questions are irrelevant" 

-The Writers of Once 

 

Its like the writers were coming straight through the screen to yell at us "stop thinking, stop questioning our ridiculous choices, and just accept what we say, no matter how batshit" 

 

If an audience can't follow your show, they'll most likely drop it altogether, so they're being foolish with this kind of reasoning.

[Mathius]

You know, Stan Lee once said something that I think applies greatly to the OUAT writers too:

 

This has led me to a great truth, one which I shall now unselfishly divulge to you. The toughest people to write about are the nice ones. Although they’re the ones you’d want for friends in real life, in stories they’re just not colorful enough. They’re too pure, too good, too dull.

 

It's a trend in this show that the nicer you are, the more phased out you get because the writers lose interest in you.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Mathius

[Katherine]

I'm enjoying the underworld arc so far, but I feel like the writers are missing out on some major opportunities. I have a feeling the Milah storyline is over, and even though I enjoyed what we did get, I feel like they should've done more with it. I like that Milah's unfinished business was about Bae, but I also wanted more on the Hook/Milah front. Hook spent hundreds of years avenging Milah. Obviously Hook has now moved on with Emma, but it surprises me that Milah seems to have moved on from Hook. I mean, clearly she still has feelings for him, but considering her dying words were to reaffirm her love for Hook, I expected more from her...I don't know what exactly, but just more of a reaction about wanting to see him, more of a reaction to his new girlfriend, more curiosity as to what he's been up to...just something more. I feel like we should've at least gotten some specific mention of Hook's vengeance quest...does Milah know the lengths he went to? More than anything, I wish that Hook and Milah could've shared a scene together in the underworld. Maybe this will happen eventually, but I kind of got the impression that that's it for Milah.

 

It kind of seems like the writers were trying to avoid any sort of allusion to a Milah/Hook/Emma triangle, and so they avoided present day Milah/Hook stuff altogether. Don't get me wrong, I would never want a triangle, and I love that Milah and Emma got along so well, but I just feel like the writers ignored some pretty meaty stuff. Milah is such an important part of Hook's backstory, yet there was more focus on her relationship with Rumple. Again, maybe this was because the writers wanted it to be clear that Hook is over Milah, but it just didn't seem to do justice to his story.

 

Unfortunately, it seems like ignoring the juiciest parts of the story is becoming a pattern with these writers. As has been mentioned, the underworld is the perfect opportunity to bring up Graham and Snow's parents, but the writers are completely bypassing all of that. I feel like a lot of it comes from fear of fan reactions. They don't want to touch on the Graham situation because Evil Regals might get mad. They don't want to touch on the fact that Rumple murdered Milah because Rumple fans might get mad (side note: I just read a tweet where a fan was upset that it wasn't addressed that Milah was horrible to Rumple--what?!). They don't want to show any Hook/Milah interaction because they're scared Captain Swan fans will get mad. It's like they're in a constant state of fear, so they just avoid writing certain situations, even when those situations are the logical next step. 

 

Basically, as much as I love the Emma/Hook stuff, I think I'll always remember this as a show that never quite lived up to its potential. I'm so excited for the Liam/Hook interactions next week, but I don't have much faith in the writers not to let me down.

[Faemonic]

I'm getting sorrier that I missed this episode, because I like what I'm hearing about this Milah. She made some dreadful decisions such as child abandonment and living as some itinerant seafarer, but if she's moved on then I'm kind of inferring that...Milah's the most emotionally mature and resilient character on the show next to Elsa? Surprises me. I mean, I was frustrated that Milah wasn't addressed between Nealfire and Hook because their contentions were still happening; I'd expect more of a sense of constancy when people have, you know, history. (And for the writers to show it.) But Milah actually died, so...and, it sounds as though she handled it really well.

 

But if you say it is just another case of writer's uh-oh-haha-nevermind then I believe you so much.

[YaddaYadda]

but if she's moved on then I'm kind of inferring that...Milah's the most emotionally mature and resilient character on the show next to Elsa?

 

Milah didn't move on. She was thrown in the River of Lost Souls by Rumple (and then he blamed her for it by saying she turned him into the man that he is which whatever...)

 

They had such a wonderful moment though before that which makes it harder to even accept that this is how she ends.

[Mari]

Milah's spent--depending on the math skills of the writer--anywhere from 80-250 years in Underbrooke. She's had plenty of time to reflect and think about what she did wrong, and what she would want to change, as well as hear reports about how well her choices played out for the people she cared about.

Since she wasn't evil, narcissistic, or psychotic, unlike some characters, just misguided and selfish? It makes sense that she'd be mature, reasonable, and resilient.

[Katherine]

I'm not saying she should have been pining for Killian all this time, but I still expected more, especially since Killian DID spend hundreds of years pining for her. I like Milah, but I think the writers did her a disservice but focusing only on her relationship with Rumple, yet still refusing to address that Rumple was the one who murdered her in the first place. It just seems like the writers get tunnel vision sometimes and struggle to balance different character relationships.

[KAOS Agent]

It's very apparent what the writers care about and what they don't by reading their interviews. Check out how they discuss how wonderful and emotional Regina's reunion with her father is and how much time and care was spent developing his crossover by showing him in the past and the present. They are highly invested in anything associated with Regina's past. Note that not only has she gotten closure with her father, but also got yet another emotional goodbye to Daniel and the random horse scene. They also waxed poetic about Cora and Regina's relationship, so I'd expect more from that as well.

 

Compare all this emotional closure for Regina with their comments about Milah, which were all focused on how it's just so awkward hahahahaha. There was no commentary on the real emotions and connection Milah had with Hook and Rumpel and Neal. There was zero interest on addressing these things and providing closure for these relationships. Notice Henry, who is still missing his father, doesn't get to meet his grandmother. Hook never gets to see Milah. She is just summarily dumped in the river most likely never to be seen again.

[Shanna Marie]

Unfortunately, it seems like ignoring the juiciest parts of the story is becoming a pattern with these writers.

"Ignoring the Juiciest Parts" will be what's engraved on this show's tombstone. Or else "Unrealized Potential."

 

It's a constant source of frustration to me that they've created this really clever premise that brings together all these worlds from literature and legend, and they've created these complex characters and relationships with lots of potential shadings, and then they skim the surface of everything. They treat the worlds and the story arcs like they're doing some kind of "Around the Fictional Universe in Eighty Days" thing, where all that matters is stopping long enough to get a passport stamp without doing any exploring or seeing anything, and then they claim to have seen the world(s). In spite of all the shades of gray they create, they divide the world into Heroes and Villains, with no exploration of how that morality even works. They tend to reduce these complex characters to one or two key traits that keep being repeated and reset, whether or not them staying that way makes sense within the story.

[BoPeeps]

Face it. The creators and writers aren't brilliant. They are mediocre. They are "idea" people who can't offer substance. We will never get what we want or deserve. It's the potential that keeps us watching, the hope that continually gets dashed.

That is what they use...hope.

[Camera One]

We've heard lots of quotes from A&E&J, so how about some from Andrew Chambliss and David H. Goodman?  Which characters will they talk about most, I wonder...

 

 

 

it had to be asked whether there are times when an episode airs a scene which looks exactly the way the writers pictured it? "Sure!" says Goodman. "I would say part of that is a function of the two of us having been part of the show for so long that, at a certain point, you know when you’re writing it when you’ve hit the tone, when you’ve got a Regina line that you know is going to stick, or you’ve got a Gold line that you know is going to stick.

 

Nice examples...

 

 

 

Chambliss says in reflection. "You’ll write something and you picture it one way..... there’s some angle of the scene that we didn’t see that the crew and the cast see. And you get these nice, fun surprises of saying, “Wow! I didn’t even realize that moment was buried in the scene.”

 

Yeah, buried very very very deeply.

 

 

 

"Andrew and I have both been on the show since, essentially, the day after the pilot, and [we’ve] been with the show the whole run," says Goodman. "I think the thing that struck me then, it doesn’t strike me as much now, is… the evolution of the… villains. I think when I sat down and watched it, I never thought the show would do such an amazing job, and Adam (Horowitz) and Eddy (Kitsis) would be so determined to dig into the lives of the bad guys just as much as the good guys. And... it’s not something you see on television, and it’s been a fun element to work on."

 

Of course, the evolution of the villains.

 

 

 

"I think David and I had a moment the other day when we were up here on set looking at the villains who are the driving forces of season one with Regina and Gold, and… how five years ago, did we ever think they would be on the side of the heroes? More so with Regina, but it’s just crazy to really think how we’ve lived with them as real people."

 

Riiight...

 

 

 

"This is a character who is always walking a line between good and bad and he’s always being tested between making decisions between power and love," says Goodman. "I think you're gonna see him in a new mode, where he is really, in a way I don’t think he has before, coming to terms with that duality and being a little more open about those two sides of him, and how both of those sides need to co-exist in order for him to be who he is."

 

This is about Rumple, if you couldn't tell.

 

Here's the rest of the interview.  I didn't bother with the part where they were gushing about Regina being the one to give a speech to Snow about hope.

http://www.onceuponafans.com/interviews/tales-from-the-writers-room-an-interview-with-andrew-chambliss-and-david-h-goodman

Edited March 29, 2016 by Camera One

[Mathius]

There are still no words to the fact that they are still trying to sell Rumple as redeemable and don't see any problem with the other characters tolerating him in their lives at this point.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Mathius