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

[KingOfHearts]

Please delete this post.

Quote

Spoiler

 

Edited August 24, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

You could say the same about 5B, too. A lot of filler leading up to a pretty decent "Last Rites," but then a faceplant on the finale.

In my personal opinion, 5B's quality averaged throguhout. It didn't really have any amazing moments that stood out to me. (I did like the Regina/Cora/Zelena bit, but there are much more interesting scenes that have aired throughout the show's history.)

Edited August 24, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[sharky]

59 minutes ago, Curio said:

Why do their penultimate episodes tend to be better than the actual finales?

Because the finales are written by A&E. The put all their finale talent in the Captain Swan movie and half ass the rest. 

[Camera One]

Why do their penultimate episodes tend to be better than the actual finales?

It could be for a few reasons.  The worst finales tend to be those tacked on to set up the next season or half-season arc.  For example, in 5B, the penultimate episode "Last Rites" concluded the Underbrooke story/Hades threat, and the finale was solely to lead up to the splitting of Regina and the introduction of Hyde and the Land of Untold Stories.  Another example is 4A, when the penultimate episode ("Shattered Sight") had the climax of the "Frozen" arc, while the finale was a setup to The Queens of Darkness and The Author mess (plus the dumb B plot with Rumple and the Hat Box).  

The 4B and 5B finales were a little different because they were standalone stories with the last 15 min to set up the next season.  Overall, those finales were better.

[Shanna Marie]

Seasons 1 and 3 have been aberrations. I don't remember what the penultimate episode of 1 was, but the finale was good. The penultimate season 3 episode was painfully bad, while the finale was one of the better episodes of the series. The problem is that they think they're writing great finales. I remember Jane Espenson tweeting about how the season 4 finale was probably her favorite episode of the series, which is astonishing. When you look at all the series she's worked on, you'd think she'd have more perspective. I don't expect her to publicly say it sucks, but she didn't have to brag about it if she didn't mean it, and I can't see how a writer with her experience could look at that mess and say it was good. It didn't hold up structurally or thematically. There were a few good moments -- the whole sequence of Henry meeting up with Hook, the two of them pulling the Wookiee prisoner ruse, and then them escaping only to run into the Evil Charmings was good, but the story as a whole just didn't hold together. The only thing that saved that episode was the fact that all the actors seemed to be having a blast, and that elevated some terrible writing. I get the sense that they've been trying to recapture the magic of the season 3 finale ever since, but putting Regina in the central role, and that's never going to work while the REC is in play. It's really hard to write a good story centered around a Mary Sue because the universe will warp around that character and the story logic won't work. I may not be crazy about Regina, but I think if she were treated honestly, it would be possible to build a good epic story around her. It's just impossible to do that while they want her to be both powerful and a victim, don't let her actually learn anything, are afraid to make her look bad, make everyone else cater to her every whim, and keep having her be the exception to the rules of their universe.

I have to say, I get so many topics for how-to-write articles, workshop presentations, and convention panels out of this show as examples of what not to do. My latest: "The Problem of Power: How a Poorly Defined Magical System Can Sap the Life from Your Story." There's also "Finding the Conflict Built Into Your Characters" and "Mine Your World for Story Potential."

[Curio]

12 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

I have to say, I get so many topics for how-to-write articles, workshop presentations, and convention panels out of this show as examples of what not to do. My latest: "The Problem of Power: How a Poorly Defined Magical System Can Sap the Life from Your Story." There's also "Finding the Conflict Built Into Your Characters" and "Mine Your World for Story Potential."

@Shanna Marie, I would totally attend these workshops. Get on this.

12 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

I get the sense that they've been trying to recapture the magic of the season 3 finale ever since, but putting Regina in the central role, and that's never going to work while the REC is in play.

When Emma is the focus of a finale, it ends up becoming a much tighter story because the show's laws don't bend around her and she has to struggle more to achieve the happy ending. When Regina is the focus of the finale, it loses a lot of emotional resonance because she often complains about her lot in life, but then they cut to the next scene and it shows someone suffering way more than her...and it's not played as irony. 

[TheGreenKnight]

The only finales I thought were any good was season 1's and season 5's. Season 3's was pretty dull outside the Rumpel scenes because it had nothing to do with the rest of the season (not to mention the Charmings/EQ era being exhausted by that point) and 2/4's finales were complete trainwrecks--which I blame more on 2B and 4B being trainwrecks. The awfulness of 4's finale was compounded by how apparent it was that most of the actors are pretty limited. I also didn't find 3B's or 5B's penultimate episodes to be bad at all, personally.

[Shanna Marie]

It's occurred to me that in the finales, other than the first season, when the focus is on Regina, it's about how sad her life is and how much she's sacrificed. When the focus is on Emma, it's on how great her life is and how she doesn't really appreciate that. So, in season 2, the finale focuses on Regina's selfless sacrifice to save them from the failsafe (never mind that she's the one who was going to use it to kill all of them). The season 3 finale is about how Emma needs to learn that she has a home and family and a man who loves her. The season 4 finale is about how sad Regina's life is and how she's always being kept from happiness in every reality, while it makes Emma realize that her real life is actually pretty great, so she wants to get back to that reality. The season 5 finale is about how sad Regina's life is and how difficult her struggle is, while Emma has it easy and she just wants to set things right to get back the people she cares about.

That could explain some of the issues with the finales -- it's a lot more fun to watch someone struggling to get back to something good or fighting to keep things good than to watch someone down in the dumps because her life is so sad (especially when her life is pretty good except for one thing). Maybe what we need is a story in which Regina has to fight to be with the people she loves. Let's trap her on the other side of a portal.

[Curio]

17 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

That could explain some of the issues with the finales -- it's a lot more fun to watch someone struggling to get back to something good or fighting to keep things good than to watch someone down in the dumps because her life is so sad (especially when her life is pretty good except for one thing).

This is why I've been advocating for a proper It's a Wonderful Life kind of story. I could handle a Regina-focused finale if Regina was the one trying to help set things right and correct the Enchanted Forest timeline in order to return everyone back to Storybrooke. For example, if Regina wished she never became the Evil Queen or made a wish that she went after Robin in the tavern the first time, we could watch her fight to bring everyone back to Storybrooke while everyone else is oblivious to the issue. Then we could finally get our Emma-grew-up-a-princess plot and have a more positive/proactive adventure than the pity party finales we've gotten the past two years.

Quote

Let's trap her on the other side of a portal.

Yes, please...

Edited August 26, 2016 by Curio

[Rumsy4]

The problem with a Wonderful Life kind of finale is the writers would inevitably use it to justify Regina's rape, murders, and tortures. 

Edited August 26, 2016 by Rumsy4

[Camera One]

This is definitely a "what if" scenario that the Writers would love to show, and would actually fit in with this season's inevitable lesson that The Evil Queen is a part of Regina that she can't separate from herself.  I can totally imagine that type of finale where Regina sees that if she hadn't become The Evil Queen, Snow would never have met Charming, Emma/Henry might never have been born (though they would still need use Jennifer Morrison, so they'd probably say Snow would have married James and Emma would have been mean and unfeeling), Hook would therefore never have found his true love, Belle would never have been able to fall in love with Rumple since her father would have erased her memories or shut her up in a tower, Neal would never have reunited with his father, Zelena would have been all alone with no family, etc.  Once Regina makes her realization, we will see Regina reincorporate The Evil Queen surrounded by a smiling and approving Henry, Emma, Snow, etc.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Camera One

[Curio]

7 minutes ago, Rumsy4 said:

The problem with a Wonderful Life kind of finale is the writers would inevitably use it to justify Regina's rape, murders, and tortures. 

They've already been justifying all of that for the past five seasons. Might as well go along with it at this point, I guess.

[Camera One]

I thought based on the concept, "Dead of Summer" was destined to be a one-season show.  But apparently not.  Granted, I've only watched two episodes, so I'm just going by conjecture, but I wonder if A&E will wing a Season 2 like they did OuAT.

EverTheVillain ‏@scratchphrase  Aug 23

@AdamHorowitzLA the #DeadOfSummer promo said series finale does that mean the show has been cancelled?

Adam Horowitz ‏@AdamHorowitzLA

@scratchphrase it said SUMMER finale. We hope to have a season 2

Edited August 26, 2016 by Camera One

[Camera One]

LOL, Adam is responding to complaints about the number of guest stars and "not focusing on the main cast", by listing how many guest stars there were in Season 1.  He also made this snarky remark, LOL.

Adam Horowitz @AdamHorowitzLA

@starscythe It's less than season 1. And, all due respect to Pongo, but he's not really a character.

[KingOfHearts]

Season 1 was also 22 episodes long. Season 6 is slated to be as well, but most of the guest stars that have been announced are only in for centrics occurring early in the season. (Save for possibly the Aladdin crew.) Many of the "guest stars" in S1 became reoccurring characters.

Edited August 27, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

Welcome to another installment of Adam's interpretation.

Adam Horowitz ‏@AdamHorowitzLA  13h13 hours ago

@Letizia0788 I know. I hear you. Truly. The EQ coming back was not because of Robin. Not directly. But I hear how much you miss him.

Steph ~ Evil Outlaw ‏@MajorOlicity  2h2 hours ago

@AdamHorowitzLA @Letizia0788 Did Robin Hood really mean that little to the story and the characters that his death served no purpose? :(

Adam Horowitz  ‏@AdamHorowitzLA

@MajorOlicity @Letizia0788 he absolutely serves a purpose. No doubt.

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

I know. I hear you. Truly. The EQ coming back was not because of Robin. Not directly. But I hear how much you miss him.

With in the context of the story, Robin has everything to do with EQ's return. If he were still alive and kicking, Regina wouldn't have felt the need to dope herself up on Jekyll Juice.

Quote

he absolutely serves a purpose. No doubt.

Robin's purpose was to act as the stepping stone toward Regina's sisterly bond with Zelena.

[Camera One]

I was watching a panel from S2 where Jennifer Morrison talked about all the reveals that happened within 3 seconds in "Manhattan" and what it was like to play all that. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuH48EHehMU

That was certainly a dramatic moment.  But is payoff affected when the Writers pile on many reveals or throws in many climaxes (eg. S1 finale) all at once?  

[YaddaYadda]

6 hours ago, Camera One said:

@AdamHorowitzLA @Letizia0788 Did Robin Hood really mean that little to the story and the characters that his death served no purpose? :(

Adam Horowitz  ‏@AdamHorowitzLA

@MajorOlicity @Letizia0788 he absolutely serves a purpose. No doubt.

Adam Horowitz: Yes, yes it did. We really didn't care for Robin all that much. I thought the writing was a good hint to that.

[Rumsy4]

2 hours ago, YaddaYadda said:

Adam Horowitz: Yes, yes it did. We really didn't care for Robin all that much. I thought the writing was a good hint to that.

LMAO! Especially in Season 5. 

[Camera One]

I've been watching episode 3 and 4 of "Dead of Summer" and I just got to the "Life is a series of moments..." line.  I feel like this show seems to have more quiet moments than "Once", by this point.  Why does everything that Elizabeth Mitchell says sounds like a long monologue?  Just found out what's in the box too... A&E clearly hasn't learned the meaning of "payoff".  I will say that A&E are pretty decent at throwing a whole bunch of random together to create mood and intrigue.  But knowing in the back of my mind that none of it will tie together and half the stuff is meaningless makes it hard to fully invest.  I also dislike getting emotionally involved in characters if they're just going to be killed off at the end of the day.  These last two flashbacks were a bit better, if a little after-school special-ish.  Four episodes in, I can say that it isn't the worst show I've ever watched... 

Edited September 3, 2016 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

34 minutes ago, Camera One said:

Four episodes in, I can say that it isn't the worst show I've ever watched... 

And this, I believe, is called "damning with faint praise". lol

[YaddaYadda]

7 hours ago, Camera One said:

 

I've been watching episode 3 and 4 of "Dead of Summer" and I just got to the "Life is a series of moments..." line.

 

They're plagiarizing stuff they wrote in the past. Was this line also part of Lost? 

[Camera One]

I don't recall the line from "Lost".  I suppose to be fair, it's a common line... I recently heard it on the British TV series "Lewis" on PBS.  The line was touching on "Once Upon a Time" when David said it, but the way it was used on "Dead of Summer" felt like the phrase was forced in.  This episode (the fourth one when the line was used) was written by A&E.  The full line I think was "(A wise friend said) life is full of moments, and if you're brave enough, you make those moments"... or something to that effect.  No way in hell I'm rewatching to find the exact wording, LOL.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Camera One

[KAOS Agent]

Or they are really big fans of Woodbridge wine. Their commercial with "Life is made up of moments. Make the most of them." always makes me roll my eyes at the writers of the show. Everyone uses it. Seriously, Google 'life is made up of moments' and see how many different authors are quoted with that line. It's a nice sentiment, and it worked well in the context of the first episode that it was used, but it's repeated a lot and it starts to become like cleaving after a while. Try something new. 

[tennisgurl]

Poor Robin. And I do really mean that, as little as I have cared about him as a character, its clear that writers cared about him even less. As other people have said, he was just the personification of this show and its obsession with creating a good idea or character or conflict...then throwing it in the trash, and acting like the fans are acting like idiots when they call them out on it. 

I have been in the midst of my late summer/early fall Once marathon (when I alternately treat/torture myself with adventures of episodes past) and it just kills me seeing how many interesting plots and ideas are created, then thrown out as fast as they came. I have also enjoyed watching season 1 again, and its interesting to see how things have changed, writing wise, and how things have actually been the same. For one thing, the whole "come up with an interesting character or conflict and get rid of it instantly" thing has been around since season 1 (Nova anyone?), but season 1 had enough stuff that WAS addressed and WAS used to its full capacity, which made the other issues more excusable. And I forgot how much I liked Regina as a villain in season 1, before the writers turned her into Saint Regina, Our Lady of Eternal Woobie. Hell, I think she was MORE sympathetic in season 1 than she would become later, as it seemed like she mostly killed people who stood in her way of her big revenge scheme, and not the random killings that later seasons would give her. The Graham stuff was Regina at her nastiest (and is STILL the stuff that I find hardest to forgive her for, at least partially because of the way the writers tried to downplay it. I find it all to be really creepy that they wrote one of their main characters to be a rapist, apparently by accident). She was evil, but you could feel some sympathy for her sad life.  Actually, its made me think back to things that I complained about in season 1, and how small those issues were, compared to the issues that would happen in later seasons. Now I am onto season 2...the land where good ideas go to die! 

[Camera One]

I'm onto Episode 7 of "Dead of Summer", and we have another great line-lift.

Kid#1 (to Kid #2): It's time to ask yourself.  How far are you willing to go?

It was also used in Season 1 Episode 2 of "Once":

Rumplestiltskin (to Regina): "You have to ask yourself the simple question. How far are you willing to go?"

At least on "Once", the line actually made sense.  On "Dead of Summer", not so much.

Episode 7 of "Dead of Summer" is also when the Curio-mentioned "What kind of man do you want to be?" line was also used.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Camera One

[Camera One]

On 9/2/2016 at 10:39 PM, Rumsy4 said:

And this, I believe, is called "damning with faint praise". lol

Well, I spoke too soon, and it does rank among the worst shows I've ever watched.  The last two episodes pretty much jumped the shark for me, though the bar was already 20,000 leagues under the sea.  Though it seems like the non-Once viewers overall seemed to like the ending, so maybe A&E gained some new fans.  I decided to post my thoughts over on that forum, even though there isn't much discussion and it's pretty much as dead as summer by this point.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

I actually feel relieved. Haha A&E never fail to disappoint...in disappointing us. I'll head over there and read your thoughts. I want to know if Anna's dead or alive. 

[sharky]

Interesting theory I saw on another board today that I thought I would pose here. Essentially, the person said that S1 was so good and everything after was so bad because A&E had Damon Lindelof giving them input on the first season. I don't think there was anything official like that, but I can totally see that being a possibility based on how bad the writing dropped off in the second season. So based on that and this recent mess that was Dead of Summer, how much help do you think A&E got from their former Lost supervisor? I feel like considering they keep being talked about as former Lost writers but don't seem to have the polish of former Lost writers that they either had someone helping them get their feet wet with the first season or that they are better at being writers with someone else in charge. Or perhaps I'm just remembering Lost with rose-colored glasses.

[Camera One]

They also had years and years to ruminate on the idea of "Once Upon a Time", which pretty much allowed them to construct one really good season.  Every other season seemed like it was done on the fly.  I seriously doubt the masters of storytelling would have asked anyone for advice for "Dead of Summer".

[orza]

I would say no help at all. This show is a union shop so Lindelof would need to get a writer or producer credit or some kind of consultant recognition for it to be kosher. Also Lindelof had other irons in the fire at that time. If he had helped them that would be common knowledge.

Season 1 was not so much better than the other seasons, just different. This theory sounds like a lot of projecting on the part of disappointed people who want a different show than the one we have and are unhappy that abc changed the direction of the show in season 2.

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

I don't think I could be a writer, since it's hard for me to come with the bigger concept ideas. 

I'm more of the opposite, really. Ideas seem to come naturally to me but the scene details are more of a challenge. Whenever I've attempted to write fanfiction, I've tried to emulate the show's style a bit because I write to "fill in the blanks" and not so much to put my own spin on it. What's funny is that it's difficult not to write talking heads scenes because the dialogue is so theatrically drawn out. It's not that characters get plenty of time to talk, but what they do say is fluffed up with cliches, snark and exposition. Their lines, more often than not, are there to either service the plot or build up some kind of iconography. We rarely see the characters actually speak what's on their minds without it being incredibly brief. It's easy to tell that subtleties in tone or body language are usually a result of the actors improving and not so much the script's direction. (Unless it comes to Regina, of course.)

Edited September 6, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

Yes, I do find that much of the dialogue on this show is throwaway.  That adds to the show being unrewarding when watched.  Pick any character... Let's say your favorite character is Snow.  Probably 80% of what she will say is exposition.  The rest is probably something reactive, or supporting another character (usually Regina).  Even in her centric, there are only a couple of lines where she will say how she feels or what she thinks.   It might not be as bad for certain characters, but overall, it's very limiting.  So many of the lines are interchangeable - they can be said by almost any character.

[AnotherCastle]

This is on the shows wiki page:

Quote

Despite the comparisons and similarities to Lost, the writers intend them to be very different shows.[23] To them, Lost concerned itself with redemption, while Once Upon a Time is about "hope".[41] Lost co-creator Damon Lindelof aids in the development of the series as a consultant, but has no official credit on the show. Kitsis and Horowitz have called him a "godfather" to the series.

Quote

Executive producers Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz wrote the first draft of the upcoming fairy-tale drama Once Upon a Time eight years ago, but it didn't go anywhere. It wasn't until they found work as writers on Lost and a mentor in series mastermind Damon Lindelof that they resurrected the idea for a show blending the worlds of fairy-tale characters with the everyday.

"Damon has been a godfather to us," Kitsis said Sunday during ABC's fall TV preview. "When we first sold the show to ABC, they said do an outline ... and we immediately went to our coach."

"And started crying,"

Lindeloff was a consultant on the pilot episode, and Kitsis and Horowitz said they continue to go to him periodically for advice. "His name isn't on the show, but his DNA is in it," Horowitz said. "He helps when he can, and sometimes he gives us tough love," Kitsis continued.orowitz added.

 

http://www.tvguide.com/news/damon-lindelof-once-upon-a-time-abc-1036165/

Interview with 'Written By' from 2013 with pdf of it at the source:

Quote

The Wizard of Once
But they weren’t yet ready to break it down. After a 10-year writers’ block, including a detour to script the feature Tron: Legacy, they still couldn’t find their way into Once. The two had a deal at ABC, as did Lindelof, so they pitched the idea to him, and he encouraged them to follow through on it—more than once. They sent three outlines to the studio, “but before they could give us notes, Adam and I would call and say, ‘We don’t like it; we want to change our minds,’” Kitsis recalls.

Time was passing, and they were very, very late to get a pilot script in. Finally, they received a visit from then-head of ABC TV Barry Jossen and now-head of ABC TV Patrick Moran, who sat the writers down and in a very tough-love way, according to Kitsis, said: “‘Stop fucking around. This is a great idea, you guys can do it, so do it.’ So they left and we immediately ran up to Damon’s office and we were like, ‘Fuck them, there’s no way to do this. Unless you do this, unless you do that…’ and all of a sudden we had the pilot.”

One could almost hear the munchkins singing “You’re Out of the Woods.”

They assumed Lindelof would take an executive producer credit, but he demurred. “We were like, ‘Oh, because you hate the idea, you don’t fucking believe in us,’” says Kitsis. “And he said, ‘If I put my name on it, it’s my show and everyone will only write about me.’” Horowitz calls it the purest form of mentor- ship. “He was trying to help us realize our vision. He didn’t want anything out of it other than seeing us grow and succeed.”

As first-time creators and showrunners, they applied what they learned from everyone they’d ever worked with. They even created characters that recalled their mentors’ work. “The Evil Queen is a very Ryan character, a strong, tough woman who will get in your face and scare the hell out of you,” Kitsis notes. “Rumpelstiltskin is a Damon character—you’re never quite sure where you’re standing, he’s Machiavellian. Not that these are re- flections of these writers’ personalities, [but] it is their style.”

Edited September 6, 2016 by AnotherCastle

[tennisgurl]

Oh yes, the Evil Queen is a Strong Woman. Bold and Audacious, I hear. Because, as we all know, Strong, Tough Women become Strong and Tough by raping, murdering, and torturing random innocent people, and writing WHORE on the car of a woman who she hates for no reason, who has no memory of why this person hates her. Oh yeah, theres a real feminist icon. 

I cannot say I know how the production of every season has gone, but I wonder if A&E did have a lot more help and a lot more restraints put on them in season 1, and when that was a success, they were given more creative control...which allowed them to devote all their time to their pet characters, their millions of ideas that go nowhere, and every other issue that has plagued this show since season 2. You see this again in the Frozen arc, where I feel like they had Disney breathing down their necks, making sure their precious Frozen franchise is being used well, and its not a part of a show that is an absolute clusterfuck (I point you towards the second half of season 2), and that actually helped make the show more cohesive. Maybe its not any one person who needs to reign in A&E, but it needs to be SOMEBODY!

[Curio]

Thanks for linking that article, @AnotherCastle! There are a lot of great gems in there.

Quote

In their apartment, they worked the same way they do today, with Horowitz at the computer and Kitsis on the couch. “But it was a futon back then,” Kitsis clarifies. Then, as now, “It’s a lot of, ‘What if this, wouldn’t it be cool if that,’ back and forth, typing furiously, printing it out, reading it aloud.”

I know we joke about the writers creating most of their plots based solely on "wouldn't it be cool if..." conversations, but I didn't realize this was legitimately the case. 

Quote

Ari Greenburg, informed them that they were drama writers. Kitsis recalls their confusion: “We’re like, ‘No we’re not, we’re funny.’ [Greenburg] goes, ‘You’re not that funny.’”

Is this why they're afraid of adding more comedy and lighter moments to OUAT? Do they not think they're funny enough? I've complained about OUAT being more dramatic than it needs to be and not being comedic enough, so maybe it all comes down this.

Quote

Kitsis: “The first thing we talked about was the Evil Queen and how hard it would be to live in a land where everything you did failed.” Horowitz points out the obvious: It’s a metaphor for Hollywood. “As writers, you have to believe what you’re doing because it’s so difficult to get anything off the ground.” Their Evil Queen wasn’t just a baddie; she was misunderstood. “So the thought process was, Where would this character succeed? Where does good not always win? Her world. Then that led to the idea, What if she cast a curse and came to our world?”

As if we needed any more proof that Regina is a Mary Sue. Now she's actually A&E's self-insert character because she's a metaphor for the struggling Hollywood writer. 

Quote

They pitted their misunderstood queen against Snow White and Prince Charming, then conjured up the couple’s daughter as the savior who would break the curse. The only problem was they had no idea how to execute the whole thing. “All the ideas were in nascent stages all over the place, but we couldn’t pull the pieces together,” Horowitz says. That didn’t stop them from pitching it. After half a dozen rejections, they shelved the idea. Looking back, they’re grateful it wasn’t picked up back then. “We would have fallen on our face,” says Horowitz. Kitsis agrees, “Oh god, it would have been horrible.”

This is what makes me so nervous about the future of the show and how it's going to eventually conclude. In the first season, as a casual viewer, I thought this was Emma and Snow's show. They were the leads in my mind and I thought the show was going to be about Emma's fairy tale happy ending. But now that I've fallen down the fandom rabbit hole, to discover that Regina was the character A&E first envisioned and based the show around, and the fact that Emma wasn't even conceived until after they tooled around with Regina, Snow, and Charming makes me question where they're taking the story. Season 1 almost seems like an aberration, and after a few seasons, A&E have finally been able to retool the show to make Regina its core focus.

I think the finale of the show will ultimately reveal to us who the real main character of the series was. If the series finale mirrors the premiere's cupcake scene and shows Emma celebrating her birthday surrounded by Hook, Henry, Snow, David, and the rest of Storybook's citizens, then we were finding Emma's happy ending all along. But if the series finale shows Regina and Emma saying goodbye to Henry as he goes off to college, then we were finding Regina's happy ending all along.

Quote

Their favorite writing experience up to that point was the episode “Tricia Tanaka Is Dead,” in which Hurley finds a van. “He wanted to get it started while all this craziness and darkness was going on around him, and Charlie thought he was dying, and at the end, the two of them get on it, and they ride down the hill, and ‘Shambala’ plays,” says Kitsis, referencing an uplifting ’70s song performed by Three Dog Night. “Adam and I looked at each other and we were like, That’s what this fairy tale show is. It’s that hope, it’s that feeling of darkness and then the light at the end, and ‘Shambala’ plays.” They knew then that they’d return to their own fantasy island after Lost ended its run.

I didn't even realize they were stealing from themselves when they used 'Shambala' during the Operation Mongoose finale. So the song 'Shambala' to them represents hope and light at the end of the tunnel, but that episode ended with Emma becoming the Dark One. Way to end on a happy note... 

Quote

“From day one, Adam and Eddy knew what they wanted in a more clear way than I’ve ever seen on a first-year show,” says David H. Goodman (Without A Trace), who runs the Once writers’ room. “Even when I was looking at pilots, it was without question the most clearly envisioned and at the same time the most interesting. Those two things don’t always go hand in hand.”

Interesting. I didn't realize Goodman ran the writers' room. Or is he just the main guy under A&E?

Quote

The series has a structure not unlike Lost, in which a present-day narrative in Storybrooke will correspond with a flashback tale in the Enchanted Forest. “We usually talk about the flashback first because it will be the emotional underpinning of the episode and usually the character we’re focusing on,” says Goodman. After figuring out the dilemma, they’ll see where it can be reflected in the present. Often an episode offers up a wrong choice/right choice mirror, “where you see a character make the wrong emotional choice in flashback, only to make the right one in the present.” Only after the emotional element is hashed out do they conceive the plot.

This is why we have so many continuity issues and why the Storybrooke plots tend to be more boring and uninspired compared to the flashbacks. When they think about the flashback concept first, the present timeline becomes an afterthought, and instead of thinking organically about what the characters in the present want to do, their motivations are being determined by something they did in the past. This kind of story breaking might have worked okay for the first season or two, but after five seasons, it's become incredibly predictable.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Curio

[YaddaYadda]

10 minutes ago, Curio said:

Is this why they're afraid of adding more comedy and lighter moments to OUAT? Do they not think they're funny enough? I've complained about OUAT being more dramatic than it needs to be and not being comedic enough, so maybe it all comes down this.

That's not entirely true. Their brand of humor comes through as Regina's "sass" which isn't all that funny. Telling pregnant Snow that she fell into Haagen daz ice cream isn't funny. Calling someone one-handed wonder is not funny either, or making fun of someone's eating habits when they didn't grow up having much food isn't funny either. 

There's snark, and then there's the snark that crosses into tasteless territory. They've just crossed it several times over thinking it was funny when it wasn't.

[Curio]

18 minutes ago, YaddaYadda said:

That's not entirely true. Their brand of humor comes through as Regina's "sass" which isn't all that funny.

Kitsis recalls their confusion: “We’re like, ‘No we’re not, we’re funny.’ [Greenburg] goes, ‘You’re not that funny.’”

Whenever Regina sasses in the future, I'll just respond in the episode thread with, "You're not that funny."

[Rumsy4]

Wow! Reading that article was a revelation. Or rather, it was a confirmation of pretty much everything we have theorized/suspected about the creation of the Show, and A&E's writing process. I'd already read somewhere that the idea of the EQ getting a Happy Ending was the seed of the Show, but I didn't realize it was a metaphor for their own writing struggles, and how they conceived her as "misunderstood" right off the bat. So, it's not like they fell in love with Lana's acting and decided to change their writing and turned Regina a woobie. It was in the Show's "DNA", to borrow a phrasing from the article.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Rumsy4

[KingOfHearts]

29 minutes ago, Rumsy4 said:

Wow! Reading that article was a revelation. Or rather, it was a confirmation of pretty much everything we have theorized/suspected about the creation of the Show, and A&E's writing process. I'd already read somewhere that the idea of the EQ getting a Happy Ending was the seed of the Show, but I didn't realize it was a metaphor for their own writing struggles, and how they conceived her as "misunderstood" right off the bat. So, it's not like they fell in love with Lana's acting and decided to change their writing and turned Regina a woobie. It was in the Show's "DNA", to borrow a phrasing from the article.

I love how we were able to deduce what the writers were actually trying to do with the show. We were able to parse the "clues" and uncover their true intentions. This board is one of the most intelligent ones I've ever had the joy of reading or posting in.

Edited September 6, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[KAOS Agent]

If you love Regina, this article has to be a total delight. I had no idea she was a self-insert character for their struggles as Hollywood writers. No wonder they say she's suffered the most, they look at her as a metaphor for their own failures and your own problems always seem so much worse than others' problems.  I wish I'd read this before I got too invested in characters the writers aren't interested in. I'd have known to quit and stay quit in Season 2. 

[YaddaYadda]

That's probably why they keep some flashbacks to a minimum, or when they do give us something, it ends up being about a jacket.

[TheGreenKnight]

4 hours ago, Curio said:

I think the finale of the show will ultimately reveal to us who the real main character of the series was. If the series finale mirrors the premiere's cupcake scene and shows Emma celebrating her birthday surrounded by Hook, Henry, Snow, David, and the rest of Storybook's citizens, then we were finding Emma's happy ending all along. But if the series finale shows Regina and Emma saying goodbye to Henry as he goes off to college, then we were finding Regina's happy ending all along.

Why is it a question of whether Emma or Regina is the main character? It's obvious they share main character status. Even in season 1, Snow didn't get enough focus to be considered on the same level as Emma.

4 hours ago, YaddaYadda said:

That's not entirely true. Their brand of humor comes through as Regina's "sass" which isn't all that funny. Telling pregnant Snow that she fell into Haagen daz ice cream isn't funny. Calling someone one-handed wonder is not funny either, or making fun of someone's eating habits when they didn't grow up having much food isn't funny either. 

I think both of those are funny. It depends on your sense of humor, I guess.

[Curio]

On September 6, 2016 at 2:22 PM, TheGreenKnight said:

Why is it a question of whether Emma or Regina is the main character?

Every TV show needs a central focus, and it seems to me that OUAT has a bit of an identity crisis at the moment. I think it's obvious Emma and Regina are the two main characters in the writers' room, but their individual stories rarely blend well. This show isn't a buddy-cop format where it makes sense to have two main characters like Rizzoli & Isles or Bones—it's an ensemble show. But every ensemble still needs a character who is the "heart" that keeps the show from falling apart. Parks & Recreation was an ensemble, but its heart was Leslie Knope. Silicon Valley is an ensemble, but its heart is Richard Hendricks. Breaking Bad is an interesting example where the main character was Walter White, but the heart of the show was Jesse. Having that one character be the emotional center of the show gives the show...well, heart...and keeps it on track. And Emma works far better as being the heart of the show than Regina, in my opinion.

It kind of reminds me of Boardwalk Empire in a way. Much like OUAT, that show had a lot of awesome characters and a lot of potential, but it never reached that great level because it was always too focused on adding new characters or focusing too much time on the grey villains who never seemed to get any comeuppances. The true heart of that show was Richard Harrow (even if the writers seemed to stumble upon that conclusion instead of mapping it out in advance), but the writers were so narrow-minded in making Nucky Thompson the heart of the show that it eventually turned away many viewers and the story lines lacked any emotional punch. A&E want so badly for Regina to be the heart of this show, but unless you're willing to ignore a lot of her character traits and don't care at all that she got away with murdering Graham with no repercussions, it just doesn't work. (This show really is much more enjoyable the less you think about it.)

I wish I could find the exact quote, but I like how Cindy McLennan worded it in one of her TWoP recaps: OUAT is at its best when it focuses on Emma's fairytale. I know Regina fans will disagree with me, but I think she would have worked better in the long run if she was treated more like Rumple and Hook where she doesn't completely overtake the story, but is still an integral part of the show.

Edited September 8, 2016 by Curio

[Rumsy4]

That's really well put, @Curio. OUAT is not a show where the main protagonist is a villain/anti-hero--like say, Breaking Bad or Dexter. It's a fairy tale Show supposedly about Hope(TM), and Happy Endings. I don't understand why they decided that whitewashing Regina's past, and sweeping her countless crimes under the rug was the way to "redeem" the character, instead of making it happen more organically like they did with Hook (and have mostly succeded). Their writing apparently does resonate with a lot of people, because Regina is a popular character. However, to a large extent, I feel that is because we are given the most backstory and insight into her character. She is allowed to whine and complain and blame others, with very little counterpoint. On the other hand, the writing treats characters like Emma much more harshly. It's not fair and even across the board. She's definitely come a long way from how she was in S1&2, but her brand of self-pity and lack of remorse or gratitude do not appeal to me. 

[TheGreenKnight]

I know this is obviously not something anyone wants to hear, but hope also applies to people who have done bad things and not just to living saints. Hope that there is always a way to turn around, hope that a person is never too far gone down the hole to climb back out, etc. Hope is a key aspect of redemption for any person. And that's why I think Regina does work as the flipside central character to Emma. They represent the different ways hope permeates OUAT: hope that good will triumph over evil, not just externally, but also internally.

[sharky]

I agree with that, but it hasn't always played out that way on screen. If Regina is the flip side of Emma, how come Regina has had five times as many flashbacks? Why have we been shown the bad things Regina has done in the past without any consequences in the present? If Regina is the flip side to Emma, why was the 100th episode focused on Regina being forgiven by her father? It would've been the perfect opportunity for the writers to show that Regina understood how decisions in her life affected Emma's life and instead we got her wandering around the Underworld with her father instead. Even with her dad moving on he was dead in the first place because of her and her actions that led to Emma being separated from her parents. But none of that was acknowledged and it was a huge missed chance by the writers. 

[Curio]

49 minutes ago, TheGreenKnight said:

I know this is obviously not something anyone wants to hear, but hope also applies to people who have done bad things and not just to living saints. Hope that there is always a way to turn around, hope that a person is never too far gone down the hole to climb back out, etc. Hope is a key aspect of redemption for any person. And that's why I think Regina does work as the flipside central character to Emma. They represent the different ways hope permeates OUAT: hope that good will triumph over evil, not just externally, but also internally.

I don't think wanting Emma (who is no saint) to be the main heart of the show and wanting Regina to have hope for redemption are mutually exclusive concepts. Of course people who have done bad things should find a way to turn things around and have hope, but it's also dangerous to make a character who has crossed the moral event horizon become the heart of the show. There's a difference between being a lead of a show and being the heart of a show. Regina can go ahead and be a lead, but I'm not necessarily sure she should be the heart. The heart of a show is supposed to be the person the audience can most sympathize with, the person with the most moral grounding, and the person we ultimately root for. In my Boardwalk Empire example, even though Richard Harrow killed dozens of people, he was still a sympathetic character and never seemed to cross that moral event horizon that made him irredeemable because he remained a person with strong morals. The part where Regina fails as a heart, in my opinion, is the moral grounding. Many fans clearly sympathize with her and root for her, but she lacks that moral compass that would make her a good fit to be the opposite side of Emma's coin.

11 minutes ago, sharky said:

If Regina is the flip side of Emma, how come Regina has had five times as many flashbacks? Why have we been shown the bad things Regina has done in the past without any consequences in the present? If Regina is the flip side to Emma, why was the 100th episode focused on Regina being forgiven by her father?

And then there's this. I wouldn't necessarily mind Regina being the flip side to Emma in theory, but the writers don't treat them equally, so instead of a 50/50 coin we have a weird lopsided shape that the writers try to pass off as yin/yang storytelling.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Curio

[Rumsy4]

47 minutes ago, Curio said:

There's a difference between being a lead of a show and being the heart of a show. Regina can go ahead and be a lead, but I'm not necessarily sure she should be the heart.  

I think this is the real issue. Regina and her self-pity have become the heart of the Show. Emma is still the lead in the technical sense, but she doesn't necessarily functional as its emotional heart. 

Quote

The heart of a show is supposed to be the person the audience can most sympathize with, the person with the most moral grounding, and the person we ultimately root for.

I don't think this applies in general for Shows. But for this kind of fairy tale show--that absolutely needs to be the case. OUAT is not really subverting the genre. It unironically turns the heroes into villains the villains into misunderstood people with tragic backstories--like a hundred other shows and movies have done in recent years. Besides, I feel like half my resentment comes from the fact that it seems like the writers pulled a bait and switch on us. Shows do change and evolve as they go, but there is an almost abrupt schism between S1 and the rest of the Show in pretty much every aspect of storytelling, but particularly in its sympathetic treatment of Regina. 

ETA: I don't think Regina shouldn't be sympathized with. But I think the sympathy she gets from the writing, and in particular from her victims, is rather egregious.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Rumsy4