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

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

Maybe I need to see more of "Dead of Summer" to find out if the big-picture concept is all that great, but I didn't come away from the pilot with that conclusion.  The world-building of the summer camp, at least given in the first hour, was random as hell and not interesting in the least, which again makes me think that they can't create an interesting universe that isn't derived from some adapted source.

Trust me - it hasn't gotten any better 3 episodes in.

Quote

"Dead of Summer" sort of told me that without the fairy tale crutch, the "original" characters they create are actually lame.  I mean, that connection audiences had in the very first scene with Snow White and Charming in the "Once" pilot was solely based on the performances and chemistry of the actors, combined with what we had in our minds about Snow White and the iconic moment of the kiss.  Without that, they came up with a bland summer camp with a bland heroine with a bland backstory and a bland assortment of stereotypes as supporting cast (compare that to the intrigue of seeing the story behind Red, Grumpy, Gepetto, etc. in Storybrooke, mainly because we know the traditional fairy tales and wonder what their role is in this universe).  

I agree that it's the the actors and the fairy tale crutch that make Once Upon a Time watchable. Aside from a few occasions, those elements far outweighed the writing. 

Quote

Unfortunately, they didn't use that to its full potential and make good use of the fact that fairytale characters are living in modern America.

I personally would like to see the Storybrooke citizens' Twitter feeds.  

Edited July 13, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Curio]

From the fandom thread:

Quote

If I were to interview Adam and Eddy, I would ask about past things that worked differently than planned. As a writer those things are interesting to me. What lines have they written that actors/directors interpreted differently? What has been a big surprise both good and bad? What is their favorite thing that ended up cut? 

That last one would be interesting for me to know from the actors too. My friends who act talk about working so hard on a scene that gets cut or edited way down. There have to be scenes like that on Ouat. 

I'm glad you brought this up, @XrystalPond, because it reminds me of another anecdote from the ATX Fest. There was a fun panel talking about the concept of "breaking story" and they had five show runners/writers from different shows discussing their experiences in their writers' rooms.

At the very end of the panel, a person from the audience asked how they dealt with their scripts getting cut down and how they go about having to plan for cutting a certain amount of scenes to meet an ultimate time goal for television. I immediately thought of OUAT and how A&E are always cutting important scenes (and sometimes dropping entire plots) because of time restrictions. But the response from these show runners seemed to be opposite of what A&E usually say when they lament having to delete certain scenes. Most of the panelists seemed confused about the question because they all try their hardest not to cut any of their scripts down. Their answer was that at the end of the day, any capable show runner or writer knows exactly the amount of script that needs to be written to fit the time allotment, and it's a waste of time to write a scene only to throw it away. Basically, they said that if scenes get cut it's all on the show runners, but they try to avoid it as much as possible.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Curio

[Camera One]

Is it hard to time how long certain scenes will take?  Do writers read it out loud to test out length?  I vaguely remember either A&E or maybe not, mentioning the difficulties to work within the constraints of each segment between commercial breaks.  Are those segment lengths pretty much set in stone, or do they change slightly?

[Rumsy4]

I watched the first two episodes of Dead of Summer. It relies a lot on camera work and sound effects to try and achieve the "creep" factor (and fails). Elizabeth Lail is terrible. She is pushing for the "troubled outsider" effect way too hard. The other charatcers are nothing much to write home about. I suppose their backstory episode will flesh them out. 

There's nothing much for Elizabeth Mitchell to do. It seems like A&E merely cast her becasue they like her. From my experience with OUAT, it seems very likely that the "big mystery" is going to turn out into something pretty ridiculous, but for now, it's all pretty nebulous. It seems like a cheap tactic to draw out the central mystery just to keep people tune in for the next episode. 

[Curio]

20 hours ago, Camera One said:

Is it hard to time how long certain scenes will take?  Do writers read it out loud to test out length?  I vaguely remember either A&E or maybe not, mentioning the difficulties to work within the constraints of each segment between commercial breaks.  Are those segment lengths pretty much set in stone, or do they change slightly?

It depends. I've seen photos of the cast doing table reads which can help determine the pacing of the dialogue, but I'm not sure if they do a read for every single episode. OUAT episodes average to 43 minutes, and within a 60-minute block where there's usually four or five 3–4-minute commercial breaks, that gives the writers five or six 7–9-minute acts to do whatever they want.

I can't say for certain how much wiggle room they have to make one section 8 minutes long and another 10 minutes long or whatever, but they probably can't make one section 4 minutes and another 14 because commercials have to fall within somewhat even time periods each week. But if you know each act can only run about 7–9 minutes, it makes it easier to plot out how the scene's pacing should go. Any screen writers want to chime in here? I know the rule of thumb is that 1 page of script = 1 minute on screen, but I don't know how accurate that really is.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Curio

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

I immediately thought of OUAT and how A&E are always cutting important scenes (and sometimes dropping entire plots) because of time restrictions. But the response from these show runners seemed to be opposite of what A&E usually say when they lament having to delete certain scenes. Most of the panelists seemed confused about the question because they all try their hardest not to cut any of their scripts down. Their answer was that at the end of the day, any capable show runner or writer knows exactly the amount of script that needs to be written to fit the time allotment, and it's a waste of time to write a scene only to throw it away. Basically, they said that if scenes get cut it's all on the show runners, but they try to avoid it as much as possible.

The more I hear about A&E's poor writing skills, the more I wonder how they get to be showrunners. They just seem to alienated from the rest of the writing world in terms of how they do their job. The rookie mistakes are numerous. 

Edited July 13, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Mari]

Not a screen writer, but since seconds count, there has to be at least a little guesswork at play--simply because different characters (and performers) have such a range of talking speed.  For example, there's a monologue in the BBC Sherlock's Baskerville that has to be huge, but he says it so quickly and ferociously that I don't see how they could know exactly how long he'd take.

[Shanna Marie]

Yeah, 1 page generally = 1 minute, but it varies depending on the balance of dialogue to action. For instance, Gilmore Girls apparently had much longer than normal scripts because they were so dialogue heavy.  In screenplay format, dialogue fits into a pretty narrow block, so if you've got tons of dialogue, it takes up more room on the page, and then if there's lots of back and forth (like on GG) instead of monologue, it takes up even more space. It's difficult to judge perfectly between page and screen timing. It can be hard to judge exactly how much time an action sequence will end up taking, but in that case, there are a lot of editing tricks that can be used to make an action scene do exactly what you need it to do in exactly the time you have. For dialogue scenes, it can vary depending on how the actors play it -- talk fast or slow, pause to think before talking, etc. But by the fifth season of a show, they should have a good handle on how the actors are likely to play it (should be hearing their voices in their heads as they write it). They shouldn't have to cut entire scenes, and having to cut entire plot lines at the last minute is just ridiculous. I wonder how much that rigid arc structure was dictated by the network. I know it's changing after getting a new boss, but is that because she wanted it stopped or because now they're free not to do it? Since the Underworld stuff was an immediate follow-up of the previous arc, it seems like it might have worked better to let some of the story flow into the spring rather than just dropping so much.

As for ad timing, when I worked for an ad agency, we mostly did print, so I'm not certain about all the TV stuff, but I believe advertisers are buying space within parts of the hour -- probably 15 minute blocks. As long as their ad appears within that block, it's okay, so there's some leeway in when breaks happen. I've noticed that shows generally do longer chunks at the beginning before the first ad break, often getting that break in just under the wire, then spread them more evenly until the end, and it always seems like there are more (and maybe shorter) ad breaks in the last quarter hour. By then I guess they think the audience is hooked and will wait through a break to see how it ends, while they might lose the audience before they're hooked if there are too many breaks early in the show.

[Curio]

22 minutes ago, Mari said:

Not a screen writer, but since seconds count, there has to be at least a little guesswork at play--simply because different characters (and performers) have such a range of talking speed.

That's where knowing the actors' performance style really helps, and especially going into Season 6, the OUAT writing staff should be able to closely mimic in their heads how Ginny, Jen, Colin, Robert, Lana, etc. will say a line. Guest characters are a little more unpredictable, but that's why you have good casting directors and look at tapes before hiring the actor, which is why it amazes me how often A&E just offer an actor the job without any audition process.

15 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

Yeah, 1 page generally = 1 minute, but it varies depending on the balance of dialogue to action.

I wonder how much of the show's plot-driven writing/action focus has an impact on the timing issues. Whenever I look over the text transcripts for each episode, the conversations aren't very long or complicated. If a lot of screen time relies on CGI magic and running around and doing potions, that's a lot harder to judge for time than a dialogue scene.

Quote

The more I hear about A&E's poor writing skills, the more I wonder how they get to be showrunners.

ABC probably really liked the pitch for OUAT, which is not hard to believe because the concept of this show is awesome. They knew about A&E from Lost, which also aired on ABC, so they were willing to give them a shot at being show runners even though they've never been in that position before. ABC's sister company, Freeform, probably thought they'd strike gold with them again for Dead of Summer and gave them 10 episodes without any messy pilot pitches. Unfortunately for Freeform, Dead of Summer is no OUAT.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Curio

[Rumsy4]

From an old S1/S2 interview, I got the impression A&E intentionally wrote more than a one-hour worth material for each episode. It seems like such a waste to me, especially as the cast and crew have to put in extra work for every episode that will not be used. But economy of ideas is clearly not their strong suit. 

[KAOS Agent]

Back in 4A, they were releasing deleted scenes for episodes the day after it aired and many were extensive and sometimes they would release multiple deleted scenes for an episode, so there is proof to back up the idea that they were still filming much more than needed into the fourth season. Oftentimes, deleted scenes make sense to have been cut. Watching the deleted scenes from movies, it's usually very apparent why they weren't included.

On Once, many of the cut scenes or the extended version of scenes often include very important character bits that would have greatly improved the audience's impression of what's going on in a character's head. They aren't writing 45 minutes of show and then adding 15 minutes of filler, they are writing 60 minutes of show and then cutting stuff that really should be there. I think it's why we get so much plot, plot, plot stuff with limited character moments because the plot stuff is necessary to move the show forward where the characterization can get completely slaughtered in editing because it's not required to make an episode make sense. Writing more than needed might have been okay in S1 since there was more balance between character and plot. However, as the show has become more and more plot driven, this method of writing has been greatly detrimental to the overall quality of the show.

[Curio]

1 minute ago, KAOS Agent said:

On Once, many of the cut scenes or the extended version of scenes often include very important character bits that would have greatly improved the audience's impression of what's going on in a character's head. They aren't writing 45 minutes of show and then adding 15 minutes of filler, they are writing 60 minutes of show and then cutting stuff that really should be there.

I still find it funny that they completely cut out the explanation for why Dark Hook was holding a snow globe from the episode, but they didn't bother to cut the scene where Colin runs out of Gold's shop holding the snow globe, so now there's just a random scene where it looks like Hook grabbed a snow globe for no apparent reason, and then it disappears the next scene.

[YaddaYadda]

36 minutes ago, Curio said:

I still find it funny that they completely cut out the explanation for why Dark Hook was holding a snow globe from the episode, but they didn't bother to cut the scene where Colin runs out of Gold's shop holding the snow globe, so now there's just a random scene where it looks like Hook grabbed a snow globe for no apparent reason, and then it disappears the next scene.

Which in retrospect, the explanation for the globe might have been important and shed light as to why Belle was holding and ready to fire her crossbow.

It's a Dark One detector! It was buzzing because Hook stepped into the pawnshop, but they thought Emma was near by. It's not like it would have been a giveaway that Hook was a Dark One (although we are sort of smart and were already guessing that he was in fact a Dark One). But Emma appeared 2 minutes after that scene happened, so yeah, maybe she was lurking around, following him.

[Shanna Marie]

2 hours ago, Curio said:

I wonder how much of the show's plot-driven writing/action focus has an impact on the timing issues.

It probably has a lot to do with it, as that's the sort of stuff that's hard to time until you actually play it out. It creates the opposite effect from a lot of dialogue -- a 43-page script that's dialogue heavy will probably run short because it's mostly white space. A 43-page script that's mostly action will probably run long because there's less white space when it's describing action. The margins are smaller and there are fewer line breaks. Though a lot of it depends on how they write action, if they're really specific or more general. Do they write more like "Regina and Emma chase the monster through the woods, hurling magical fireballs, but the creature evades them until it vanishes" or more like "Regina and Emma give chase to the monster, who darts among the trees. Regina hurls a fireball, but the creature dodges it. Emma follows up with a fireball of her own, only to have it explode uselessly against a tree. Emma hurdles a fallen tree trunk, but Regina's shoes aren't the best for running through the woods, so she's moving more slowly ... (etc., etc.)"? A three-minute scene might be covered in one sentence, or they might fill the entire page to cover one minute of screen action. I suspect they lean toward the latter, considering that they bother to write out the characters' thoughts in the directions with dialogue blocks.

But, again, by now you'd think they'd have figured out how what they write translates into screentime.

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

 I think it's why we get so much plot, plot, plot stuff with limited character moments because the plot stuff is necessary to move the show forward where the characterization can get completely slaughtered in editing because it's not required to make an episode make sense. 

The writers tend to over-complicate the plot. Hence, more time is spent on ineffectively explaining unnecessary fluff. It's funny how much backstory we got on Camelot in 5A without it actually going anywhere. In 5B, there were more character moments, but aside from Zelena's, they were retreads of what we'd already seen before. So while focus is definitely an issue, the execution and quality of what's actually portrayed are a large contributing factor to what's wrong with the writing.

Edited July 14, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[daxx]

My understanding is that OUAT doesn't do table reads. They do a rehearsal just before filming but no table reads.

[KAOS Agent]

The snow globe being cut is an excellent example of where a scene's removal didn't affect the overall events of the episode, but greatly changes the understanding of Hook's actions in jumping off the roof. The globe was lit up, so he thought Emma was right there and simply hiding. He needed to find her and thought she was right there. He wasn't afraid he would die because she was watching and he knew his actions would get her to show herself (obviously, the globe was lit because of him, but he didn't know that). Without knowing the meaning of the globe, that move is really dumb because maybe Emma is busy elsewhere or isn't paying attention to Hook. I'm not a huge fan of the jumping off the roof thing at all, but the globe gives much better context to what was happening in that entire sequence.

Did the snow globe need to be there? No. But it negatively affected Hook's character by removing it. So if the writers are deliberately overwriting for an episode, this is an example of why it's a bad idea. I also think that the writers aren't always aware about what got cut from the final episode and write later stories based on information that was in the final script of an earlier episode, but never made it to the TV screen. 

Edited July 14, 2016 by KAOS Agent

[Rumsy4]

7 minutes ago, KAOS Agent said:

I also think that the writers aren't always aware about what got cut from the final episode and write later stories based on information that was in the final script of an earlier episode, but never made it to the TV screen. 

Adam has claimed several times on twitter that he and Eddy make the final decision on which scenes are cut. Not sure how much I buy that. If it is true, the editors must be cussing them out every week! lol

[YaddaYadda]

23 minutes ago, Rumsy4 said:

Adam has claimed several times on twitter that he and Eddy make the final decision on which scenes are cut. Not sure how much I buy that. If it is true, the editors must be cussing them out every week! lol

Or the guys that wrote the episode.

Meanwhile, let's keep all the irrelevant dialogue to the story like, you need to find Nimue because yo, she's your only hope to fix this mess!

[Shanna Marie]

1 hour ago, KingOfHearts said:

The writers tend to over-complicate the plot. Hence, more time is spent on ineffectively explaining unnecessary fluff. It's funny how much backstory we got on Camelot in 5A without it actually going anywhere.

Oh yeah, that was practically a case study in unnecessarily overcomplicated plotting. Take Lancelot -- they brought him back mostly just so he could tell the Charmings that Arthur was bad news, which led to that insane "plan" in which they staged a fight and then told Arthur all their secrets to see what he'd do about it, caught him in their trap and got sanded. All that just for them to learn for sure that Arthur was bad. Then they immediately had to send Lancelot away (after busting him out of the dungeon for no apparent reason other than to reintroduce Merida) because it would ruin the Storybrooke plot if someone there could have told them up front that Arthur was bad. Meanwhile, the sanding on the Charmings had no consequences and was undone right away in the very next episode without them actually doing anything because of the sanding. All of that was an overly complicated way for the characters to learn that Arthur was bad news. Which the audience already knew. But then most of the plotting of the discovery was aimed at keeping the audience in the dark about what the Charmings were really up to -- and yet even if it was their clever plan, their clever plan involved telling a potential enemy all their secrets, so even after we learned their real motives and that it was all a plan, it was still a facepalm moment.

Did no one in the writers' room consider letting some of the Storybrooke gang figure it out for themselves that something was up with Arthur? They still could have done the Lancelot backstory and explained the sand without bringing Lancelot on in the present more or less just to tell them Arthur was bad and then disappear again. Grumpy could have overheard something and told Belle, so those two could have had something to do. What they did had to have been the most complicated way possible to take care of a minor bit of story business, especially since the sand had no consequences for the Charmings, Lancelot contributed nothing else, and the sanding and the Lancelot/Guinevere relationship were never resolved.

[YaddaYadda]

Or they could have foregone Merida and kept Lancelot as the one to make Rumble brave, because it would have made more sense organically. The audience already knew him, he was the bravest and the best of Arthur's knights. I think the story might have been more coherent. Lancelot was useless. Merlin was came and left with no real resolution other than he's dealer than dead. Percival''s death was pointless because status quo, Gwen was also pointless because status quo. 

They brought in a bunch of characters that brought nothing or not much to the story. Arthur got something but that was a complete fluke.

[Camera One]

How did they decide who's going to be the dumb one

We can probably answer that one.  Snow and Charming.

I want to know why did they choose certain characters for each scene.

I think they choose based on balanced screentime and who actually interests them.  The characters/ships they're interested in get the deeper conversations or relationship building (eg. Regina, CS, Rumple).  Everyone else gets to chime in as the exposition fairy or to state/ask the obvious.  Except when that character is alloted their "centric" in which case they will get a bit more screentime, which is immediately cut off after their quota has been fulfilled if they're not interesting to A&E.

[YaddaYadda]

10 hours ago, XrystalPond said:

The dropped plot about the magical snow globe does come to mind. I can certainly see it not working within the time constraints. It would be hard to explain how Rumple came up with that device. He had been the Dark One. He would not have much experience with hunting them. That whole thing would have taken too much time to try to explain in a coherent way. However why they only shot it with the snow globe in the scenes makes absolutely no sense either.

They wouldn't have needed to explain anything because they don't really explain anything, and globe was the new gauntlet. All they had to say was this globe is lit because the Dark One is near by. 

[Camera One]

This from Adam.  LOL!

Adam Horowitz ‏@AdamHorowitzLA
@kmkeirns we try to plan things very carefully to the best of our ability. Thanks!

[Serena]

Um, self burn?

[Curio]

Oh, I forgot one other Dead of Summer nugget. 

The characters are talking about the movie Time Bandits and one of them says, "I loved that film. Robin Hood, Napoleon... all that time travel was really cool."

Unfortunately, A&E's own OUAT Robin Hood wasn't interesting enough to keep on this show...

[Camera One]

I was reading the script to "Ruby Slippers", and the script is just so clunky.  

RED: You know, I understand what it's like to feel like you don't belong anywhere.
DOROTHY: Really, Wolfie? Your family tried to have you committed?
RED: No, my entire village ran me out of town.
DOROTHY: Really?
RED: With torches and pitchforks.  
DOROTHY: Because you're a wolf?
RED: I didn't always know I was, and I certainly didn't back then.  I wasn't in control.  And one night, I accidentally killed my boyfriend.
DOROTHY: Wow.
RED: Yeah.  I lived on the run after that, and I eventually learned to control my power, made some friends along the way.  I ended up in a town called Storybrooke, but I still felt like there was something missing.
DOROTHY: And you came to Oz looking for answers.
RED: I came here looking for my pack.  I thought maybe they were what was missing, but after searching for so long, I'm not sure if they're the answer anymore.
DOROTHY: What are you looking for?
RED: I'm not sure.
DOROTHY: Well, maybe that's the problem.

---------

First of all, was the "Your family tried to have you committed" line supposed to be funny?  Or did Dorothy lash out since she was skeptical when Red insisted she understood how Dorothy felt?  Secondly, Dorothy started the line with "Really" twice.  Thirdly, the whole recap of "Red Handed" was just boring, and then tacking on the unconvincing explanation of why Red left Storybrooke.  Fourthly, why would Dorothy reply "And you came to Oz looking answers?"  Huh?  It just felt like a clunky setup to the whole "what are you looking for?"  

I know we're always asking for quieter moments and deeper conversations, and I feel like this was meant to be one of those.  I'm just trying to figure out why it didn't work at all.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Camera One

[Curio]

That episode didn't work because the characters don't have history together. If they made that entire episode about Red realizing she has feelings for Mulan, I think it would have had a much more positive reaction from the fandom.

It would be one thing if OUAT was a mini series or only one season long where there aren't a lot of episodes to build up character development. If that were the case, then seeing a quick one-episode romance plot would be par for the course. But OUAT isn't that—it's going into Season 6 and surpassed 100 episodes. The audience expects continuity and longer episode arcs now. If Zelena and Hades were given the majority of the 5B arc to fall in love and break up, why did the writers not think to do the same with Red's relationship?

Edited July 17, 2016 by Curio

[Camera One]

I agree, though I was focusing more on the poor quality of the dialogue.  I found the conversation between Charming and Arthur to be similarly poor and over-expositioned.  

[Rumsy4]

2 hours ago, Camera One said:

I know we're always asking for quieter moments and deeper conversations, and I feel like this was meant to be one of those.  I'm just trying to figure out why it didn't work at all.

 

2 hours ago, Camera One said:

I agree, though I was focusing more on the poor quality of the dialogue.  I found the conversation between Charming and Arthur to be similarly poor and over-expositioned.  

I think the writers have become so plot-focussed, that most of the time they're writing with an agenda. In the first case, they're trying to sell a fast-tracked romance between two charatcers who just met, and with actors who lacked chemistry together. In the second instance, the writers were creating a false-bonding moment between Arthur and Charming. But the moment was so random, and there was no organic lead up (just like the time David and Robin bonded in the missing year in that Rapunzel episode). The Arthur and Hook underworld team-up came across really well in contrast. Maybe becasue by then Arthur and Hook had shared several scenes, and we'd had a good lead-up to it.

Regina's Light and Dark speech in the S5 finale was also over-expositioned and clunky. It made no sense as a follow-up to the Season as a whole, or to Regina's arc in particular. Quieter moments and deeper conversations don't work when the writers just drop it into an episode with little set-up. 

Edited July 18, 2016 by Rumsy4

[Kktjones]

4 minutes ago, Rumsy4 said:

I think the writers have become so plot-focussed, that most of the time they're writing with an agenda.

THIS! If you really listen and pay attention, half the dialogue on this show makes no sense and has no ties to anything that's come before it. Take the conversation between Emma and Hook before their "true love" test. After their little discussion about whether or not it's true love, Hook says something like "Why are you only able to admit your feelings when one of us is facing certain death"? What does that line have to do with anything they were just saying? She didn't just admit her feelings, for one thing. And they had said "I love you" in many calm moments during the season. They just needed him to say that so that she could say the thing about the armor. Then they could also refer back to that with the major payoff in the finale of Emma telling Hook (gasp) "I love you". If I have time this week, I may go back and find some of the most clunky, non-sensical dialogue to share here.

[Curio]

Also, 70% of the dialogue is people asking questions about things to set up their convoluted magical plots. "Why would Villain A need Object B?" "Snarky comment about Object B." "Seriously? Villain A is real, too?" "Back in the Enchanted Forest, we used to know Character C who used Object B." "And if we can find Character C in Storybrooke..." "That will lead us to Object B." "And hopefully lead us to Villain A!"

Edited July 18, 2016 by Curio

[Camera One]

Someone on Twitter screencaped photos of Regina and Zelena in the jail cell with Regina holding Page 23 saying "remember when this was never explained?"

Adam responded with:

Adam Horowitz ‏@AdamHorowitzLA

@httpbatesmills this scene is not a part of canon. we rewrote the episode to take it out because it didn't work with plans

He also said:

Adam Horowitz ‏@AdamHorowitzLA 

@starscythe and honestly, not sure why there needs to be an explanation for cut scenes. it's part of the process

Edited July 18, 2016 by Camera One

[Curio]

So why do certain cut scenes become canon and others don't? Shouldn't it be that all cut scenes aren't canon? If it's not in the final on-air product, it's not canon.

Also, I don't find it surprising that 4B required several last-second rewrites. I can remember them filming several scenes that eventually got cut or rewritten, including one at the end of 4x12 where Regina was apparently talking with Henry at the diner, and another scene where Regina was showing someone the storybook. Unfortunately, when your main plot is convoluted to begin with, there isn't much you can do to save it.

Edited July 18, 2016 by Curio

[Camera One]

He seemed to imply the deleted scenes found on the DVD are cut because of time.  Maybe in those cases, he considers it canon?  Scenes like the one above were cut because "they didn't fit".  But then again, he "doesn't see why there needs to be an explanation", so, LOL.  He didn't explain what the point of Page 23 was in the grander scheme.

Edited July 18, 2016 by Camera One

[YaddaYadda]

3 hours ago, Camera One said:

He didn't explain what the point of Page 23 was in the grander scheme.

It's a scene that meant nothing in the end. If they had decided to write an AU where Regina had decided to go into the tavern, it might have made more sense.

That page made Robin look even worse after they aired 4x16 because it was heavily implied that Robin was already a married man. At least that's what I remember of it.

[Shanna Marie]

22 minutes ago, YaddaYadda said:

That page made Robin look even worse after they aired 4x16 because it was heavily implied that Robin was already a married man. At least that's what I remember of it.

I thought that he was hanging out in the tavern then, as a customer. Then he ran a tavern later, after he gave up thieving for Marian. Though it's hard to tell if it's meant to be the same tavern or not, given that all Enchanted Forest taverns are part of the Ye Olde Tavern chain (billions served).

But whether or not that one scene was in there, did they ever actually explain that mysterious page that miraculously appeared to Robin? That seemed to be one of those things thrown in to give a "cool" moment but that never really mattered or made sense. They ended up negating that whole "the Author is writing me a sad ending and making my life awful" thing when they revealed that Isaac was a fan of Regina's, liked the villains, and was more interested in steering the heroes in the wrong direction. I'm not sure how that fit with Regina having an alternate outcome written, especially since that happened before she actually became a villain and would have kept her from being a villain, and that happened before Isaac was stuck inside the book, when he was still running around and changing things, so if he wrote it, wouldn't it have happened that way?

[YaddaYadda]

2 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

But whether or not that one scene was in there, did they ever actually explain that mysterious page that miraculously appeared to Robin? That seemed to be one of those things thrown in to give a "cool" moment but that never really mattered or made sense.

I think they wrote that in with maybe a different finale in mind. 

I mean whatever finale they thought about when they wrote 5x11 was not the same that we got because we got the gang from Camelot being sent back to the EF when we know they were supposed to be done in 5x11. So NYC with the adventures of Henry and Violet, peeps going through portals, it likely wasn't supposed to play out that way with the destruction of magic, and whatever horrid writing we got.

[Souris]

When they're changing plans after a scene has been filmed, that's BAD. Just shows how disorganized & changeable they are. They're terrible showrunners.

[Camera One]

Maybe the 4B finale / Isaac's Book was originally "What if Regina had gone into the Tavern for Robin Hood?".  Then, we would have seen the evil Leopold and Snow hunting the happy Robin and Regina down, and then in the end, she would have to give up her happy ending with Robin Hood for Henry.  Wouldn't that have been heartbreaking?  Since basically, that entire alt adventure was inconsequential before we got that epilogue in Storybrooke with the Black Goo mess, so it could have been the gang trapped in a bouncy castle, or whatever.

Edited July 18, 2016 by Camera One

[KAOS Agent]

I haven't seen the cut scene referenced in the tweet, but didn't Isaac say in an aired scene that Page 23 was just him experimenting? It was like he was writing fanfic on his own to "fix" the canon that he recorded in the way real life played out.

Edited July 19, 2016 by KAOS Agent

[Shanna Marie]

4 minutes ago, KAOS Agent said:

I haven't seen the cut scene referenced in the tweet, but didn't Isaac say in an aired scene that Page 23 was just him experimenting? It was like he was writing fanfic on his own to "fix" the canon that he recorded in the way real life played out.

I do recall that, though didn't everything Isaac wrote come true? He was able to shape reality. When he wrote that AU book for Rumple, it created a new reality. So how could he write a page that didn't come true? (Plus, it was a picture, not text -- is there an Illustrator in addition to the Author, or does the pen give the Author the ability to draw, too?)

[YaddaYadda]

I still don't understand why his ass would have been allowed to write anything at all after he was imprisoned in the book. Him experimenting with page 23 defeats the entire purpose of why he was locked up in that stupid book in the first place, because he was messing with stuff he shouldn't have been messing with, and took people's free will to boot.

I think the scene came about like this;

Robin and Will used to know each other. Let's have them do something together! Let's add a test page for the book where Regina wasn't such a snot and decided to go for her happy ending instead of vengeance. Hey look! Extra motivation for her to want to find the Author! All of this makes so much sense!

Yeah, it really doesn't.

[Shanna Marie]

59 minutes ago, YaddaYadda said:

I still don't understand why his ass would have been allowed to write anything at all after he was imprisoned in the book.

He wouldn't have been imprisoned at the time Page 23 could have occurred, since he was booked after Snow and Charming were married. Though that doesn't explain how all the events from that point until he was free could have been recorded. Was he able to keep authoring but not interfering after that? Did he write Page 23 when he saw Regina make the wrong choice, or was he amusing himself with alternate history fanfic during his imprisonment? How did he get that page out? How did his other stuff end up in the storybook while he was imprisoned?

I really get the impression that they made up all the Author mythology as they went. None of it was planned, not even at the point where the "find the Author" plan came up. Even though the conclusion to it was painfully obvious to us, I suspect they didn't realize that was where they were going with it until they got there and realized that was the only way they could do it. There was just so much randomness involved -- the Apprentice to the Sorcerer selects each Author to record events, and even though the Authors aren't supposed to change things, only record them, they have the power to change events by writing them with the magic quill using the magic ink. The magic ink is made from the blood of a Dark Savior, even though there haven't been Saviors until one was written into the Dark Curse as a backdoor failsafe for Rumple. Walt Disney was a past Author, and somehow he recorded the events of Snow White's life before they happened (and got it wrong). The Storybook shows the real story, but it's different from what past Authors have shown. Oh, and the Sorcerer is Merlin, but he's been stuck in a tree all this time, working through the Apprentice. For half the arc, everyone believes that the Author is the reason Regina can't get a happy ending, until it turns out he not only didn't negatively impact her life, but it was Snow's life he affected. And then no one reacts to the fact that they were all wrong and that finding the Author was a bad idea. They're just grabbing ideas out of thin air as they occur to them, without even looking at what they've already written.

[KingOfHearts]

The Apprentice said this after the Author was imprisoned:

Apprentice: "He is in the book, where he can no longer alter our world... only record what happens."

Edited July 19, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[YaddaYadda]

The way I interpreted that whole scene with the Author was that he created the page as bait for Regina after he was stuck in the book. Why would he wanna change the EQ's story when he clearly hated writing the heroes?

Plus he was able to signal Henry, show him where the key was so that he would be set free. That alone, imo, is already altering whatever is supposed to be happening.

I wanna say that the Author was the worst idea, worst executed writing, but it sadly wasn't. 

Edited July 19, 2016 by YaddaYadda

[Curio]

21 minutes ago, YaddaYadda said:

I wanna say that the Author was the worst idea, worst executed writing, but it sadly wasn't. 

If the Author plot wasn't the worst, what was? I still think it has to be pretty high on the list of terrible, nonsensical plots on this show...if not the worst. I almost quit watching in 4B because of it.

[KingOfHearts]

1 hour ago, Curio said:

If the Author plot wasn't the worst, what was? I still think it has to be pretty high on the list of terrible, nonsensical plots on this show...if not the worst. I almost quit watching in 4B because of it.

The Author plot is worse than Greg/Tamara. There, I said it.

[Shanna Marie]

To add to the "making it up as they go" list for the Author plot:

Part of the 4A-4B cliffhanger was the room full of blank books, making it seem like the books were the big deal, but then later we see that the Author can work his magic with the pen and ink, writing on anything. Or is it that they can only do the magic where the pen automatically records events the Author isn't even aware of using the special books? (And why do they need an Author if the magic is in the pen and the books and the Author is unconsciously recording things he's not even aware of or witnessing?)

Isaac gets "fired" as Author for creating the AU, with Henry taking over as Author. So why wasn't Isaac fired and a new Author assigned in the first place, back when Isaac was altering events? Why lock him up in the book instead of taking away his power then?

Maybe Isaac didn't age while he was stuck in the door page, but what about the years previously? He was made Author in the 50s, but he was the same age around 30 years later when he ran into Snow and Charming. Does that mean the Author doesn't age while doing his duties? Except they strongly implied that Disney was an Author, and he aged normally and died. What does this mean for Henry?

I do think that the Author plot was worse than Greg/Tamara. There were good ideas behind the Greg/Tamara plot in the tension between magic and science, in the idea that people who'd been wronged by magic would oppose it. That story was just undermined by the Victim Regina narrative that turned her victims into villains for opposing her and by the abrupt switch to the Neverland plot so that it turned out that Greg and Tamara were actually working for Peter Pan all along. The Author stuff was a mess from start to finish. I suppose there was something worth exploring in the idea of the book that magically recorded events and that appeared when it was needed, and it would have been interesting to explore how fairy tales from our world were real life in that world, and especially how we had the fairy tales centuries before these events happened in that world, and then there was the possibility of fairy tale "rules" that these people are stuck with, like villains not being allowed to have happy endings, but that didn't really appear in that plot at all. The whole "we'll find the Author and make him change my ending" thing didn't really follow from what had been established, and then the mythology for the Author was so random and dependent on what they needed for the plot of that week's episode. The Greg and Tamara stuff was a good idea badly executed and hampered by writer ADD and/or a change in plans. The Author stuff was a bad idea badly executed and built around meaningless "aha!" moments, and it dragged the whole cast down with it.

[Selina K]

13 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

The Author plot is worse than Greg/Tamara. There, I said it.

I would rather watch Greg / Tamara resurrected and actually delve into magic vs real world than watch the idiot Author plot again.  Greg & Tamara stood out at the time because we didnt have the subsequent poor writing to which we could compare it and we still thought we were going to get some kind of resolution between Emma and her parents and the consequences of the original curse.  Now I would almost beg to get that story since we know we're never going to get the emotional fallout or exploration of the consequences of the original curse.  We know we aren't sacrificing the story we want to see in order to see Tamara's magical taser, because we are never going to see the Emma / Snowing dynamic explored with any meaning.