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

[AnotherCastle]

http://nemapasara.tumblr.com/post/154137284616/so-janes-saying-that-it-was-emmas-wish-realm

I really would love a tell-it-all on just what goes on in the writers room.

[tri4335]

Bringing a point over from the episode thread and some thoughts from various other threads.

So the ratings have been going down, JMO indicated in an interview that they over film by 15 - 20 minutes for each episode and Adam has been spending his last few days on Twitter "explaining" the episode but pointing out that he thought it was clear.

I do think the episode is what they wanted to show but what Adam is doing is trying to protect any future work endeavors. I'm not sure that the show is in danger of getting cancelled but I do think we have a convergence of things happening. One - ratings are trending the wrong way. Two - some/many fans of the show find the A & E episodes to be craptacular and voice those opinions into the public arena.  Three - it has come out that A & E overshoot every episode which means they are not good managers of resources. I mean what does that translate into for working hours/payroll etc. Four - their other endeavor on Freeform tanked.  Five - they have great talent on the show and almost an unlimited supply of Disney IP and they somehow have squandered that potential.  I think Adam is spending all this time trying to appease people so that he and Eddy will get another shot and it really isn't about OUAT at this point. 

I will say this, if they ever do get another show, I won't watch it. I don't care if it "must see tv" I will refuse to go down the rabbit hole with them again.

Edited December 7, 2016 by tri4335
fixing typo

[andromeda331]

20 minutes ago, tri4335 said:

I will say this, if they ever do get another show, I won't watch it. I don't care if it "must see tv" I will refuse to go down the rabbit hole with them again.

I won't either. I already skipped Dead of Summer because I didn't want to go down the rabbit hole again. Once Upon a Time was really the "second" chance for me since they used to be part of LOST and I decided to give them and this type of show another chance. Both shows come up with interesting ideas but end up squandering so much of it, along with potential from their cast, they both fell in love a character and changed the show to center around that character. There's a lot of potential in these kinds of stories and in the right hands it could be really good, but A&E are not those.

[KingOfHearts]

When you introduce something like a fake-but-not-fake AU, you have to spend time providing exposition to explain how it works. If it were an alternate timeline, all we would need to know is that the curse never happened. Audiences are pretty accustomed to time travel shenanigans, so that wouldn't take much explaining. In the S4 finale, when it was just a straight-up AU, we knew what Rumple's intentions were with it and that everyone in it had fake memories, as in S1. It wasn't well thought-out but it made more sense than the 6x10 clusterfrick. I remember Isaac and the Apprentice elaborating on its mechanics. There weren't any weird moral implications in the Heroes and Villains world because the deaths were not real nor were the murderers aware (they apologized too).

The hang-up for Regenie World is the fake people. We don't know anything about them except Regina and Emma believe they are "fake". We don't know why they believe this, we just have to assume they're right. But then Robin waltzed in, and suddenly it's a gray issue. If they were fake, Regina didn't murder or unleash a dark evil on defenseless folk. If there's a possibility they're real, then Regina could get Robin, but she once again murdered innocents. The writers have written themselves into a corner. Regina loses either way. (Well, I mean, none of the characters will care if we found out she murdered Snowing. That's never bothered them before. It just makes her look bad to fans.)

Edited December 7, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Mathius]

Some interesting remarks from this article...

Quote

“When we pitched it, we said it’s like a summer movie. We wanted it to be for everyone,” says Kitsis. “For us, every year had to be a new adventure while you further these characters.”

"Like a summer movie" tends to suggest a lot of action, which means the plot!plot!plot! style was what they wanted from the beginning.

Also, I will never be over how they honestly believe they have "furthered the characters".  Most of the characters are flatter, less human and more cartoony now.

Quote

"So the idea then hit us: what if there was another savior, and what if that was Aladdin?"

REALLY?  After all these years, THAT'S the idea you get that warranted Aladdin's presence on the show?

There is literally nothing about that idea that requires Aladdin, you could make the other savior any heroic character and it would work as well.

Quote

"You drive in here with these characters. You can play around with them. We try not to dent them too bad."

Many will say you have already dented Aladdin and Jasmine very badly...and Jafar, whom you haven't, is barely being played around with!

Quote

“Damon [Lindelof] and Carlton [Cuse] were incredible mentors in trying to prepare us what is basically a job you can’t prepare for, being a showrunner,” 

 

Either they prepared you poorly or you didn't listen enough.  You're solid showrunners in every department except writing, which is a crucial one.

Quote

“The ‘Lost’ writers’ room was a room where you had to come in ready to play. There were no weak links in that room. You had to be ready.” 

 

In other words, nothing like the Once writers' room, in which there's almost nothing BUT weak leaks save for usually David Goodman.

Quote

"Working on 'Lost' told us how to use genre as a metaphor. How do you do the character first because the interesting thing about ‘Lost’ is everyone was like, ‘I want everything answered,’ but most things were answered. It was about the journey, not the end. It’s really hard to get people to understand that. ‘Once’ for us was always about the journey. ‘Lost’ was always about the journey, because that’s why you watch a show.”

I....I don't think I can with this one, there are too many things wrong with it.  Anyone else wanna take a swing at it instead?

[Mari]

I find it sad and creepy that they're still so stuck on their connection to Lost.  

[KingOfHearts]

25 minutes ago, Mari said:

I find it sad and creepy that they're still so stuck on their connection to Lost.  

It's like saying you catered a party at NASA in the 60s and that made you responsible for putting a man on the moon.

Edited December 7, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[KAOS Agent]

More fun from the showrunners:

"We realized that Regina has worked really hard at not being bad, but one thing she hasn’t worked on is her own happiness."

Did they miss the entirety of S4? Wasn't that her entire arc for the season? And in the end she realized that she had achieved her happy ending, not by having a man, but by being at home in the world (or something to that effect). Honestly, what the hell? 

[KingOfHearts]

The writers like to tell us that the sky is green and water is dry. Like, who really believes this stuff? They don't even believe themselves because they deny their own work.

A couple little Regina quotes about her happiness:
"My enemies became my family and that's when I finally felt happy. That is why I'm here. They need my help and when family needs help you step up."
"My happy ending is finally feeling at home in the world. Robin is just a part of that world."

I love how the first quote is directed toward Zelena, yet Zelena is family and Regina only saved her because "that's what heroes do".

Edited December 8, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Mathius]

9 minutes ago, KAOS Agent said:

More fun from the showrunners:

"We realized that Regina has worked really hard at not being bad, but one thing she hasn’t worked on is her own happiness."

Did they miss the entirety of S4? Wasn't that her entire arc for the season? And in the end she realized that she had achieved her happy ending, not by having a man, but by being at home in the world (or something to that effect). Honestly, what the hell? 

And given how gleeful the EQ is, all this current arc has shown us is that working hard at not being bad doesn't make her happy, being evil does.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Mathius

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

And given how gleeful the EQ is

It's unbelievably ironic that the Evil Queen was the one satisfied with her circumstances. She was supposedly the caster of the Dark Curse, the one with the hole in her heart, and the "evil" side. (Evil isn't supposed to be happy.) Even when EQ was losing, she always got back on the horse. She didn't lay around moping about how life isn't fair. She loved herself and what she did. Regina shouldn't be lecturing her on happiness or fulfillment. EQ is much more aware of the journey and what's right in front of her.

So, um... why does Regina get to be the hero again? Why couldn't we have gotten EQ as an antihero this past arc?

Quote

, all this current arc has shown us is that working hard at not being bad doesn't make her happy, being evil does.

Apparently being a hero means you die young, you never get a break, and you can't enjoy yourself. The writers claim the show is never "bleak", but the heroes have separated and death. The only difference between being a hero or a villain is one side gets to do whatever they want, while the other is tied to a "moral code" that gives them no benefit.

Edited December 8, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Rumsy4]

37 minutes ago, KAOS Agent said:

More fun from the showrunners:

"We realized that Regina has worked really hard at not being bad, but one thing she hasn’t worked on is her own happiness."

Did they miss the entirety of S4? Wasn't that her entire arc for the season? And in the end she realized that she had achieved her happy ending, not by having a man, but by being at home in the world (or something to that effect). Honestly, what the hell? 

Eddy should just stop talking. Forever. (Did I just make a wish??)

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

Eddy should just stop talking. Forever. (Did I just make a wish??)

It's Adam and Jane now. Thanks a lot, @Rumsy4.

Edited December 8, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Shanna Marie]

The recent comments from the writers have made it pretty clear why the show is sinking. It's a really, really bad sign when the writers don't even agree about what's going on with how something in an episode works. That shows that there was no real worldbuilding, no figuring out what was going on. They just threw things out there without thinking it through.

On 12/7/2016 at 5:59 PM, KAOS Agent said:

"We realized that Regina has worked really hard at not being bad, but one thing she hasn’t worked on is her own happiness."

Did they miss the entirety of S4?

Did they miss that the entire premise of the show is the consequences of what Regina did to try to get happiness? She cast the curse because she thought it was the way to make herself happy. Maybe she was wrong about how to find happiness, but most of her time on the show has been devoted to working on her own happiness. What she needs to work on his focusing on other people's happiness without thinking so much about what's in it for her or how what's going on with other people compares to what she's getting. Besides, happiness should be a byproduct of doing other stuff. If you're out desperately trying to be happy, with happiness as your only goal, you're doomed to fail. It's like being a hero. If you're trying to be a hero in order to be a hero, rather than merely trying to do the right thing and letting others decide if that makes you a hero, then you're never really going to be a hero.

But then we knew they were delusional when they did all those interviews talking about Regina always getting the short end of the stick, when they'd done an entire arc about Emma being forced to be the Dark One after she sacrificed to save everyone, then had to sacrifice her boyfriend, and were in the process of writing an arc about Emma finding out she was doomed. They not only have Regina blinders. They have giant-screen TVs playing a loop of Regina sad faces blocking out everything else.

[Camera One]

Quote

Eddy: "We realized that Regina has worked really hard at not being bad, but one thing she hasn’t worked on is her own happiness."

Quotes like these really reveal their assumptions, and shows why they will never try to understand our problems with the show.  

To them, Regina isn't working on her own happiness enough and has already redeemed herself.  So why would they show her returning hearts or apologizing to the townfolk, or Emma, or Snow?  

Other comments are just as useful.  We now know what they consider to be "Year of Snowing".  We know now how far Rumple's behavior can go, and Belle is still given a line like "What have WE done to each other?"  

Edited December 9, 2016 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

Warning: You probably won't trust me any more after this post. ;)

It's funny, I actually enjoy many of the things A&E do. I like plot movement, scenery chewing, faster pacing, different worlds, using famous characters, and plot twists. I actually thought S1 was kind of boring for its slower more day-to-day format. It's fun to be surprised or have OMG moments. I just think that A&E could do a better job of what they actually want to accomplish. Their goals are not all rubbish, but they don't know how to execute them. (Much like some politicians.) Their concepts are exciting on paper, but what gets to screen is almost always something else.

Not all of their ideas are good. Some of them are fundamentally asinine, like the Author plot, but I don't necessarily hate their vision for the show. I just think Once is a very complicated and difficult thing to write. It's not for the faint at heart. You need to be on par if not better than Lost to really pull it off. What makes matters worse is that the writers consistently make rookie mistakes.

Edited December 15, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Curio]

The funny thing is, the show doesn't have to be overly complicated or difficult to follow. I think they just try to create "complicated" plots to make them appear smart or like LOST, but I doubt most viewers tune in because of the confusing plot lines. They've already created really interesting and engaging characters—which is probably the most difficult thing to achieve in writing—but instead of focusing on the character beats, they'd rather come up with some complicated plot/surprise instead.

[KingOfHearts]

1 hour ago, Curio said:

The funny thing is, the show doesn't have to be overly complicated or difficult to follow. I think they just try to create "complicated" plots to make them appear smart or like LOST, but I doubt most viewers tune in because of the confusing plot lines. 

Well, it's complicated because they make it up as they go along. Even a five-year old can make a story that's difficult to follow because of the random nature of the elements they introduce. (And if you try to give someone the Reader's Digest version of Once, it does sound like something a child would write.) With the Once multiverse, you could go either way. It can be either complicated or simple, but I think A&E's design of the show is meant to be complex. It has to have deep worldbuilding in order to really work. 

Quote

They've already created really interesting and engaging characters—which is probably the most difficult thing to achieve in writing—but instead of focusing on the character beats, they'd rather come up with some complicated plot/surprise instead.

It wouldn't take much to include character beats or intimate moments. It's not like you'd have to restructure the whole show. I would just be happy with reminders that these characters are real people with real emotions on a regular basis. I don't need an entire episode dedicated to Hook and Emma watching pirate documentaries on Netflix or Regina shopping for pantsuits with Zelena. I just want a full-length scene here or there so we know they're not in danger mode 100% of the time. But, you know, more than 20 seconds to A&E is "42 minutes of kissing". They were probably the kid on Princess Bride who wanted to skip all the romantic parts.

And you know, the slow moments should be important. Why did Mary Margaret need to teach again just before getting cursed? She could have met Jasmine at Granny's or something. There was no point whatsoever for her to be her aide. Why tease the characters trying to resume a "normal life" when they only care about it 20% of the time? Why make Snow want to be "Snow" again then make her want to be "Mary Margaret" again almost immediately in the next arc? It just doesn't help character development or worldbuilding at all. The writers love to keep it two-dimensional.

Edited December 15, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Shanna Marie]

16 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

I just want a full-length scene here or there so we know they're not in danger mode 100% of the time. But, you know, more than 20 seconds to A&E is "42 minutes of kissing".

I think that's a big part of the problem. They're very all-or-nothing. So it's either plot-plot-plot or 42 minutes of kissing, not 30 minutes of plot and 12 minutes of character beats woven in so that the emotional impact of the plot gets ramped up. Or everything has to be a surprise twist, so they can't set anything up and everything has to come out of the blue, rather than doing a mix of surprise and suspense, so that sometimes we can get a sense of where they're going and be anxiously awaiting it and sometimes there's a genuine surprise twist rather than everything being alien vampire bunnies dropping out of the sky with no setup, lest it not be a huge surprise. Or Regina is either a villain or a hero, with no room for progress from one to another.

But, yeah, they're doing something right if we care enough to dissect it. I still say that there's some idiot savant stuff going on, where they're brilliant in ways they don't realize they're brilliant, and that means they aren't able to capitalize on the things they do well because they're so busy trying to do something else. They're amazing at concept most of the time, but terrible at really developing the concept, brilliant at creating characters, but terrible at using those characters they've developed in organic ways that work along with the plot. Their strength is character and relationships, but all they really seem to care about is plot, which they're not very good at because that takes logic, noticing who and what the characters are, and careful development. The small child telling a story comparison is very appropriate. If you've ever asked a 4-year-old to tell you about the game she's playing with her toys, it sounds a lot like what describing this show sounds like, where new characters show up at random for no good reason, crazy things suddenly happen, the important stuff from the beginning of the story is forgotten entirely while it goes off on a tangent, and it brings in characters from everything she likes, often things she hasn't even seen (it's really funny seeing kids who are too young to have seen any actual Star Wars stuff getting excited about Star Wars and trying to tell you all about it -- that's a lot of the way the story characters on this show come across. By the way, according to the kindergarteners I work with, Rey is a ninja.)

[Mitch]

On 12/7/2016 at 6:11 PM, KingOfHearts said:

It's unbelievably ironic that the Evil Queen was the one satisfied with her circumstances. She was supposedly the caster of the Dark Curse, the one with the hole in her heart, and the "evil" side. (Evil isn't supposed to be happy.) Even when EQ was losing, she always got back on the horse. She didn't lay around moping about how life isn't fair. She loved herself and what she did. Regina shouldn't be lecturing her on happiness or fulfillment. EQ is much more aware of the journey and what's right in front of her.

So, um... why does Regina get to be the hero again? Why couldn't we have gotten EQ as an antihero this past arc?

 

According to this show, to be a "hero" you need to be stupid, self righteous, and boring. If I lived in SB I would definatley want "the Author" to make me a villain.....they have all have one liners, and outrageous fashion senses. They continually give out the wrong message as Regina is whiny and sad and the EQ seems to be having a lot of fun..all she needs is a best friend/sparring partner..like Cruella..(please writers.) Which reminds me..what does Malificent feel about her old friend/enemy being back in town?

I am all for killing Regina and having the EQ as an anithero?? ( "EQ we need help with the latest Disney merchandise opportunity, we mean villain..." EQ sipping an apple martini...before noon, on a Tuesday, "What's in it for ME???" )

[KingOfHearts]

Oh hell yes. Antihero!EQ would be the best. Can I still hope and pray Regina dies?

[Rumsy4]

We already had Zelena for that. But they wasted her instead.

[Curio]

From another thread:

Quote

Often, I don't think they realize what they've written or understand what they've written.

It's like they don't realize and do realize at the same time. It's bizarre. I don't think A&E believed (and maybe they still stubbornly refuse to believe) that Regina was raping Graham at the time they wrote it, and when it was brought to their attention that that's what they were portraying on screen, it's like their brains short-circuited and they tried to rationalize that it wasn't. "No, we would never allow our favorite character and our self-insert character to be a rapist. There's no coming back from that. That's the moral event horizon. We plan to make her a hero next season." So what did they do instead? They avoided talking about Graham's death and his relationship with Regina. Emma still doesn't know about how he truly died over five years later. Graham never got a proper funeral episode. There's no photo of him in the Sheriff's Station. A&E made jokes about Regina and Graham playing board games in her bedchamber. The show never explained Graham's shoelace around Emma's wrist that Jen and Jamie came up with to honor his character. Emma listed Graham as a reason for being afraid to take the next step with Hook, but the very next episode had Emma begging a snotty Regina for friendship. Adam insisted that even though Regina had Graham's heart, he still had free will. Instead of having an open dialogue with the fans about what Regina did, they put their heads in the sand ostrich-style and waited for the negative comments to pass. And guess what? It worked. Most fans have forgotten all about what Regina did and now she's taken over the show as the character with the most screen time this season. We're watching Regina's fairy tale now.

I want to give A&E the benefit of the doubt here. I can try to put myself in their shoes and understand that two guys without a lot of exposure to these kinds of topics where they grew up could have lead to them unknowingly writing a plot about their favorite character sexually taking advantage of another character. To them, they probably just saw Regina as being sexy, flirty, and a little too mischievous. And they knew Graham was going to die no matter what halfway through Season 1, so they viewed his character as disposable and didn't empathize with what he was going through in those first seven episodes. But because the audience didn't know Graham was disposable, we latched onto his character more than the writers and were able to call Regina out, whereas A&E had their Regina blinders on and viewed the situation more through her lens. It never even occurred to them the implication of what they were showing on screen, so that's why we'll never address the Graham elephant in the room for the rest of the series. 

But then they went and brought Graham back for random flashbacks that never addressed the consent issue, and they made Zelena violate Robin seasons later. (And also had Regina hypocritically yell at Zelena for that.) So on the one hand, I'm willing to give A&E slack about overlooking the Regina stuff in Season 1, but then why didn't they learn their lesson with Zelena? And why make the Evil Queen even lustier in Season 6? At least in Zelena's case, they made a bigger deal about what Zelena did as being wrong, but then they went and killed off Robin right away. Is it not coincidental that both of the men who've been violated in similar ways on this show died relatively soon after the backlash? Thankfully, Zelena wasn't the one to kill Robin (even though Regina would beg to differ).

It's like they write these questionable things without thinking through the implications because, "Hey, it's magic! Doesn't matter. Not real life. A five-year-old can tell the difference between fact and fiction." But it does matter when you want us to believe these are real people in real-life Maine. It matters if you want us to buy these redemption arcs and connect with these characters. Another example of the writers not thinking through all the implications is when Hook smacked Belle across the face in Season 2. 

ABC Exec: "Umm, A&E, this guy is supposed to be Emma's love interest, right? You gotta dial it back on that kind of stuff if you want the audience to buy the romance."
A&E: "But it's Captain Hook! He's a villain! We need him doing villainous things! That was totally badass when he knocked Belle out. Total surprise! You don't expect him to do that, and then WHAM! We love those kinds of moments."
ABC Exec: "Okay, but speaking as a woman, can you have him doing things that don't involve physically injuring defenseless women? I thought he was supposed to have good form."
A&E: "Oh, he totally has good form. I don't know who wrote that scene. I can't believe they allowed Hook to do that!"
ABC Exec: "According to the script, you two wrote it." [No, really. They did write that episode.]
A&E: "...well, you probably don't want to watch tonight's episode then."
ABC Exec: "Why?"
A&E: "Hook shoots Belle with a gun."

Thus, the Season 3 Hook rebrand was born and they dialed back his villainy and innuendo. Like the Regina situation, I just don't think A&E thought through how some of that stuff might play out on screen or fully understood what they were writing. When you compare Hook's character in Season 2 to the character shown in Seasons 3-6, there's a noticeable shift in the way Hook is written and portrayed. (And it's not just because he's grown into a hero. Even his flashbacks as villainous Captain Hook have been neutered.) I don't know if ABC actually meddled or not, but I wouldn't doubt it. Unlike the other villains, he has been pretty steady as a character starting from the Season 2 finale until now. Every flashback he has with women like Ariel and Ursula, he's generally kind or helpful at first, but betrays them in ways that don't include hitting or shooting them. The only times he gets physically aggressive is around men. Hook even punched a guy for getting too handsy with Milah, which seems to directly contradict his behavior with Belle. I think something must have happened behind the scenes to retool Hook into becoming Emma's True Love sometime during the disaster that was 2B, because the Hook who knocked Belle out in the tower is definitely not the same kind of guy they've shown us in Seasons 3-6.

It's just my personal theory, but much like how A&E didn't really empathize with Graham in the Regina/Graham situation, I don't think they empathized with Belle in the Hook/Belle situation, so they didn't see what Hook was doing as being that bad. (Maybe they still don't empathize with Belle if her plot in Season 6 is anything to go by...) But at least Hook owned up to all of his actions and had a conversation with Belle about it, so the writers know it was bad. Which brings me back to my confusion about whether or not they fully understand what they're writing. If they can understand that Hook did something terrible to Belle and were willing to show Hook's acknowledgment of it on screen, why haven't they done the same with Regina and Graham? Regina calling the Evil Queen's sexual fantasy "perverted" in the last episode just makes things worse. So do they recognize what Regina did in Season 1 as being terrible, or was that just a funny line they wanted to throw in?

My friend stopped watching this show around Season 2 when the Regina/Cora stuff was ramping up, but I still occasionally fill her in on the major plot points of each season just because she's curious about how much of a train wreck the show has become. The last time I filled her in, she said, "This show is written by a white guy, isn't it?"

Edited December 16, 2016 by Curio

[Shanna Marie]

8 hours ago, Curio said:

I don't think A&E believed (and maybe they still stubbornly refuse to believe) that Regina was raping Graham at the time they wrote it, and when it was brought to their attention that that's what they were portraying on screen, it's like their brains short-circuited and they tried to rationalize that it wasn't. "No, we would never allow our favorite character and our self-insert character to be a rapist. There's no coming back from that. That's the moral event horizon. We plan to make her a hero next season."

I'm not sure if it was because they wouldn't allow her to be a rapist because they wanted to make her a hero. They really don't seem to see her behavior as that of a rapist. They seem to fall into that belief that women can't rape men, that any man who wouldn't be thrilled to have a hot woman like Regina have her wicked way with him has to be gay. It's like their personal sexual fantasies being played out, and since they'd be totally cool with it, it's not rape for Graham. But then when people pointed out that what they were showing was rape, that Graham was not consenting, that he'd had his ability to consent removed, they couldn't admit that they were wrong, and so they doubled down and did it again with Robin. Then they got defensive, with those "anyone can tell it's not real" arguments. And then they tripled down with the implication that the Evil Queen was going to force Aladdin. It's like a kind of stubbornness kicked in, where instead of saying, "Oh, that wasn't what we intended to portray, thank you for bringing it to our attention" and then not doing it again, they're essentially saying, "It's not rape, so there, and to prove it, we'll do it again and again."

Come to think of it, Regina was awfully creepy with Hook when she caught him going after Belle. Whether or not they intend or realize it, they write her as a sexual predator.

[Camera One]

Quote

 And then they tripled down with the implication that the Evil Queen was going to force Aladdin. It's like a kind of stubbornness kicked in, where instead of saying, "Oh, that wasn't what we intended to portray, thank you for bringing it to our attention" and then not doing it again, they're essentially saying, "It's not rape, so there, and to prove it, we'll do it again and again."

The fact that they made that "joke" again with Aladdin shows they couldn't care less.  The "eww" line did generate the laughs as intended.

I don't think they see the Zelena thing as rape either, since she looked like Marian when she did it.  They even had her saying a touching goodbye to Roland as if she was an overindulgent aunt who was over for vacation.

Overall, it shows that they don't accept criticism or concerns.  They dismiss it completely.    

The actor who played Graham had this really damaged/beaten down/self-loathing demeanor to him in Season 1 which probably made the effect of the rape more magnified than they intended it to be.  

Edited December 17, 2016 by Camera One

[AnotherCastle]

I think this says it all, from the 1.22 Audio commentary of the Huntsman scene:

Quote

Eddy Kitsis (chuckling): I love how [the Queen] just abuses [the huntsman], that he’s basically just a trapped sex slave.

I also thought Zelena and Rumple during 3b in Storbrooke was very icky and in that vein.

[Rumsy4]

Oh my word...

[Camera One]

Wow.  There's really no ambiguity about what they think, then.

Edited December 17, 2016 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

Now imagine someone saying this if the genders were reversed. It seems these people really think it's okay to sexually abuse a man if (they think) the woman is hot and powerful. This also connects to the episode where they painted Regina as a feminist because she strung up the sexist Sheriff of Nottingham. 

[KingOfHearts]

2 hours ago, Rumsy4 said:

Now imagine someone saying this if the genders were reversed. It seems these people really think it's okay to sexually abuse a man if (they think) the woman is hot and powerful. This also connects to the episode where they painted Regina as a feminist because she strung up the sexist Sheriff of Nottingham. 

I'm starting to see where the sexist writing for Charming comes from. I don't think it's meant to make him "old school", like one could imagine.

Quote

Eddy Kitsis (chuckling): I love how [the Queen] just abuses [the huntsman], that he’s basically just a trapped sex slave.

I don't want to personally attack them, but this statement is just disgusting. Sure we're smart enough to figure out this is a fictional show, but to find rape funny or attractive is not okay. I feel like they took something from our childhoods and turned it into a perverted fantasy, and not for artistic reasons.

Edited December 17, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

At least Charming's sometimes archaic attitude can be ascribed to his medieval background.  That Enchanted Forest mindset should actually be explored more in the series.  It could lead to a lot more interesting growth and the culture clash that could exist between Charming and Emma as they began to work together in the Sheriff's office, for example.  

It seems like Eddy subscribes to the idea that Graham as a man would have wanted it.  They already portrayed the Huntsman as animalistic which makes the situation even more icky.

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

At least Charming's sometimes archaic attitude can be ascribed to his medieval background.  That Enchanted Forest mindset should actually be explored more in the series.  It could lead to a lot more interesting growth and the culture clash that could exist between Charming and Emma as they began to work together in the Sheriff's office, for example.  

None of the other characters seem to have the EF mindset though. Charming seems to be the only exception. No one else has an archaic attitude. Elsa talks about dating and Snow was totally fine with Regina having an affair. They're pretty progressive for members of a feudal society. On its own, Charming is not terribly offensive. But, if you put it together with everyone else, it's iffy.

Quote

It seems like Eddy subscribes to the idea that Graham as a man would have wanted it. 

When Graham's entire story revolved around the fact he didn't want it.

Edited December 17, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[ParadoxLost]

2 minutes ago, Camera One said:

At least Charming's sometimes archaic attitude can be ascribed to his medieval background.  That Enchanted Forest mindset should actually be explored more in the series.  It could lead to a lot more interesting growth and the culture clash that could exist between Charming and Emma as they began to work together in the Sheriff's office, for example.  

I've always felt this show would be miles better if they had made the cursed personalities and the Enchanted Forest personalities very distinct and then explored the problems of integrating them or choosing one over the other.  Its like they toyed with it every once and a while with Snow and Mary Margret (lying liars that lie about Snow wanting to ditch Mary Margret, the bastards) and that one episode with Lacey/Belle but mostly they are a big ball of characterization that serves the plot.

Heck they can't even make Evil Queen and Regina distinct personalities.

But I think I've always wanted this show to take some inspiration from Enchanted and play off the EF characters culture clash with the land without magic more and Emma to have a harder time with fairy tale people.

[Camera One]

None of the other characters seem to have the EF mindset though. Charming seems to be the only exception. No one else has an archaic attitude. Elsa talks about dating and Snow was totally fine with Regina having an affair. They're pretty progressive for members of a feudal society. On its own, Charming is not terribly offensive. But, if you put it together with everyone else, it's iffy.

It's the usual inconsistent world-building, and making the characters act the way the plot demands it.  Considering they don't know what to do with Charming half the time, his attitude is used to generate conflict when needed.  Snow was clearly being used as a prop for Regina as per usual in that conversation.  

[KAOS Agent]

I think it comes down to the writers being unable to take multiple points of view when writing scenes, so some characters go completely off the map in order to prop the other. This is most evident in scenes with Regina. She is their main POV character, so her thoughts and needs permeate the conversation and affect the others. For example, Snow was shown in S1 to know that the affair with David was wrong. She even broke up with him over it because she realized it was only hurting everyone. That Snow wouldn't have been all sly about how she'd slept with a married man too. Her POV and real advice would have been to share her experience as it was, shameful, hurtful and wrong. Instead, Snow tells Regina it's okay and acts like it's no big deal because that's what Regina needed to hear. But there was zero plot need for Snow to prop Regina there. She should have been able to express the reality and warn Regina. It's all related to an inability to reflect more than one character's POV because they were all on board with Regina's line of thinking.

When Snow is off with other characters, her POV is the one that can be expressed. The regular Snow that we know shines through. However, then David can end up overshadowed by her because they want Snow's needs & thoughts to play out. He puts up a token resistance to Snow's bad choices (eggnapping, anyone?) and then caves because David isn't allowed to have a perspective. Some of this is plot need related, but too often there's no need for a character to act a certain way other than because the writers want a prop for their main characters' bad ideas/actions. There's a hierarchy for the characters POV that starts with Regina/Rumpel then moves down to Snow/Emma/Hook and David/Belle get the short end of the stick. Henry is simply a prop at all times, so his opinion is almost never character based.

Edited December 17, 2016 by KAOS Agent

[Camera One]

When Snow is off with other characters, her POV is the one that can be expressed.   The regular Snow that we know shines through

I'm not sure what the regular Snow POV even is.  She gives speeches on hope, and then she makes pessimistic remarks of despair.  She wants to be Snow White again, and then she wants to live a "normal life" à la Mary Margaret.  Even though she "dominates" over David, their dialogue is interchangeable 90% of the time.  Her "voice" is one of the most ill-defined in this series despite being one of the supposed leads.

[Rumsy4]

9 minutes ago, Camera One said:

 

Edited December 17, 2016 by Rumsy4
Ugh it won't go away!

[Rumsy4]

When it comes to Regina, I agree that her PoV is the most significant. Eddy's disgusting statement about Graham shows that he was nothing but a plot device to them. The only character he and Adam seem to genuinely care about is Regina. Their writing choices makes sense when we look at it from the angle that this story is Regina's fairy tale. That's why everything revolves around her when she is in a scene (it really is all about her). 

I guess Adam and Eddy feel that a powerful woman is sexy, even if she is a tyrant. The "bold and audacious" remark makes a lot more sense coming out of the mouth of writers than Robin Hood, but he was as much as object as Graham was. 

[Shanna Marie]

I've been analyzing what, exactly, it is about the writing that's so wrong, and it ended up getting pretty epic. So there may be more posts in the days to come. But one of the big things is sloppy if not non-existent worldbuilding, which covers multiple areas:

• No real sense of how their story universe works. So there's this other world where the fairy tales we know of take place and fairy tale and storybook characters are real people, but their stories don't quite go the same way as we've always heard. But we never really learn what their relationship is to the stories we've heard. We've had stories about Snow White for hundreds of years, and these events are in the past 35-40 years (except for the Rumple and Hook era, which is a century or so earlier). For a while, my headcanon was that it was our telling of these stories that made these people become real in another dimension, and once they became real, their stories played out differently because they were people who could make their own choices. The Author plot blew that to hell and made the situation even weirder -- the Grimms and Disney told the Snow White story before any of these events happened, and they got it "wrong," so how does that work? Are there multiple Snow Whites in the multiverse, and it was only Isaac who told the story of this one? Then they also crammed in stories from other sources that weren't fairy tales and created multiple realms. Neverland and Wonderland made some sense to be in different worlds, since traveling to a different place is part of those worlds, but then there was the World Without Color, Fictional Victorian World, Fictional 1920s World and apparently Fictional Depression-Era Kansas World. But then the Darlings were in real Victorian London, so within the same world they're both storybook characters and real people, and their real story is very different from the fictional story. And then we have people from stories that are actually tied to a particular place, like Robin Hood and King Arthur, being in the same world as these other people, or even people who are based on real people, like Blackbeard.
• No real development of their story world. The Enchanted Forest is a real blank slate when it comes to culture. We don't have a strong sense of what that world is really like, not enough to make its people at all distinct (unless they're from a culture that's different because it's from a different story, even though it's within a day's walk). That means that there's nothing really about Storybrooke that makes it different from any other American town (other than the magic), and there was nothing really different about the Enchanted Forest when people who'd lived in modern America moved back there. You can't tell the difference between people who had cursed memory downloads and those who didn't, and we weren't even sure if some characters got memory downloads in the second curse without losing their identities.
• No sense of the world's morality -- by that I'm not talking about the villain sympathy, but rather that it's hard to tell what's considered right and wrong, illegal or legal, etc. Sometimes they talk like the Enchanted Forest is a world of black-and-white fairytale morality, and then they've moved the action to our world, which has more shades of gray, where the lines between heroes and villains aren't as clear-cut. At other times, they talk about how these aren't your parents' fairy tales, that in the Enchanted Forest they're real people, and so there are more shades of gray. Heroes don't kill people, except sometimes they do, and there's no rhyme or reason between the times when killing a villain to save others will put a dark spot on your heart and when killing a person who's inconvenient isn't worth a second thought. Revenge is wrong, but at the same time there doesn't seem to be any real justice system, so I guess you just have to take whatever's done to you. "Hero" and "Villain" are apparently teams you join and jerseys you wear rather than something other people call you based on your actions. Villains don't get happy endings, unless they do, but then Saviors don't get happy endings, either. Evil isn't born, it's made, unless it's a psychopath, but no, not that psychopath, she had a sad life, and never mind that there are good people who had equally sad lives who didn't turn evil, but still, evil is made. The afterlife is about unfinished business or finished business, and has nothing to do with actions or morality, so someone who devoted her life to evil gets to go to the good place after setting one thing right in the Underworld, but other people get dumped into the River of Lost Souls and obliterated. So there's not even a strong sense of right and wrong in the afterlife.
• No defined magic system -- there are Dark One powers, Savior powers, Grail powers, and fairy powers, but we don't know how people like the Mills women got magic and if there are other people with similar potential. It's called the "Enchanted" forest, but the only people around with magic are the fairies and the villains, and yet people don't seem to fear or distrust magic. The existence of magic is treated as a ho-hum part of life, except in neighboring places where they don't believe in magic, and yet it doesn't seem to be around all that much. There are no rules or limits to magic, just wave a hand to do what you want to do, unless the plot needs some stalling, in which case magic requires an elaborate ritual with multiple ingredients. No one gets burned out or tired from using magic. You don't need specific spells or a wand to do magic, unless you do in that circumstance. Any person with magic powers can heal any wound, unless it was caused by a particular weapon, except they still take people to the emergency room and give them surgery instead of calling a magic user. Magic always comes with a price, but people can use magic left and right without any cost or drawback.
• The use of language has no rhyme or reason -- People in the fairy tale world speak modern English, even before the curse. They talk about dating and use modern words like "okay." Initially, almost everyone had a North American accent, except for Rumple, Belle and her father, Graham, and Gepetto. Most of it seemed to come from the actors' native accents, with Gepetto coming from the character's origins, even though there are no other Italian people. Then the people from British stories had British accents, and yet the Wicked Witch from the American Wizard of Oz has a British accent. We've got Scottish Merida a day's walk from British Camelot, a day's walk from American Enchanted Forest. Not!France mostly uses Australian accents. Scottish Rumple and British Milah were living among American-accented people, but didn't seem to be foreigners. Portuguese-accented Guinevere grew up in Camelot, a small town at the time, alongside British-accented Arthur and American-accented Kai. I guess this goes back to that no sense of the culture of this world.

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

Fictional Depression-Era Kansas World

That sounds like a horrible place to live. They've never going to get out of the Great Depression because they're in a "realm of story" where there is no time or year.

Quote

 So there's not even a strong sense of right and wrong in the afterlife.

One important aspect of worldbuilding is religion and beliefs. It usually goes hand-in-hand with morality and what drives the characters. While I don't think Lost did a tremendous job with the afterlife, the Others cult, DHARMA's scientific motives, and the varying real-world backgrounds of the Survivors kept everyone motivated at a personal level. It was very gray until the final season. I like that it took elements both from real-world religions and original ideas.

Quote

Sometimes they talk like the Enchanted Forest is a world of black-and-white fairytale morality, and then they've moved the action to our world, which has more shades of gray, where the lines between heroes and villains aren't as clear-cut.

It seems like every other kingdom in the Enchanted Forest was corrupt at different times. Who regulated their morality? What gave them such strong honor codes? The fairies seemed enigmatic, so it's not like they were really policing anything. They were the only dominant force of "good" in the magic world. There's no origin for the "hero's don't kill" guideline, other than maybe Henry's immature mouth. Fairy tales strongly promoted morality and religious beliefs, so it's kind of jarring that the show alludes to that without giving any rhyme or reason for doing so. I feel like beliefs should be one of the first systems to figure out upon designing a fantasy world.

Quote

The use of language has no rhyme or reason -- People in the fairy tale world speak modern English, even before the curse. 

I don't mind English that's easy to understand, as the show is attempting to emulate animated Disney films somewhat. I just think their vocabulary is inconsistent. Elsa can say "dating" but Hook is still saying "what the devil".

Edited December 17, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

The reason for the whacked out morality is twofold (1) The Writers need an artificial way to keep Rumple and Regina alive and constantly interacting with the other leads... how could that happen if the "heroes" were allowed to kill, imprison, or even hate them?  (2) The Writers insist they are writing "complex" characters.  It's easy to make a villain "complex - give them a few sadface scenes and sob story flashbacks, and attempts at righting their wrongs.  But how do you make a good person "complex"?  You make them wishy-washy, hypocritical, incompetent and secret liars and sinners who make the wrong choice, pick the "easy way", and constantly feel guilty for everything (or you give up and let them stand around doing nothing of value).

Edited December 17, 2016 by Camera One

[ParadoxLost]

18 hours ago, KAOS Agent said:

I think it comes down to the writers being unable to take multiple points of view when writing scenes, so some characters go completely off the map in order to prop the other.

I agree with this but I also think its worse than this.  I don't think that they can write for an ensemble.  That's why every time there is a group scene or story arc (Underworld) it seems like there are always characters milling around whose only purpose is to carry the supplies.  They usually break off into pairs to resolve plot points.  Its why Charming and Snow are never front and center at the same time unless they are in a storyline together.

Its just more evident now because this is Regina's arc.  Because Regina has less ties than Emma.  Emma has enough ties to bring in the whole cast of characters into a plot.  Regina just doesn't.  She can bring in Emma, Snow, and Henry.  Everyone else is more of a one off. 

I think the absence of Captain Swan is because Regina is the focus.  They can't handle two degrees of separation, so its Regina-> Emma and they can't pull Hook into the main story because that would happen through Emma.  Frankly I think the Outlaw Queen fans could have argued the same thing last year in that Robin was mostly just carrying Regina's purse (up until his death) while Emma had the focus because Emma doesn't have the relationship to pull Robin into the story, that had to happen via Regina.  And writing for three characters at the same time for more than one scene is so hard.  Boo hoo, poor writers.

[Camera One]

I was watching the clip that the "Once" Facebook page put up, of "Weekend Brunch with the Family" (from "Dark Waters").

As much as I liked a slice of everyday life, maybe it's because they're so rare that they are so clunky and awkward.  Maybe it stems from the fact that we have no idea what the "norm" is.  

Emma asks Hook to move in at the end of Episode 3, yet in Episode 6, we get the weird scene of Hook throwing Henry's pop tarts into the trash.  Hasn't Henry been eating that the last few mornings too?  He asks, "What's for breakfast?", so does Emma sometimes cook breakfast?  Maybe it would have worked better if Hook is up first preparing mackarel and grapefruit but Henry wants to eat pop tarts.  Or if they indicate this was Henry's first time sleeping over.

And then Hook's "I'll make sure the lad doesn't get into too much trouble."  So they need to babysit Henry?  What does he usually do with his free time, since he seems awfully intent on Hook "not staying" and he'd be "fine on his own".  Then Hook says, "Hurry back"... uh, isn't he just walking to the trash can outside?  I know, I know, it's all set up so Henry finds the Shears in the shed, but it feels so deliberate.

Not to mention Jasmine texting Emma that she can't find Aladdin.  Isn't this supposed to be the morning?  Are Jasmine and Aladdin living with each other?  Shouldn't she give it a few more hours?  Is there nothing else that Emma as Sheriff needs to do?

Edited December 18, 2016 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

 Is there nothing else that Emma as Sheriff needs to do?

It's pretty convenient that outside of the Hero clique and Rumpbelle, Storybrooke never has any problems. All the citizens are law-abiding. They never have any complaints. Multiple kingdoms that were once at war with each other are now living in perfect harmony. No one cares about villains who murdered their families (not even REC applies) are walking around.

"Oh, hey Maleficent. Remember when you threw my husband over the bridge into the abyss? No? Ok. Would you like fries with that burger?"

Edited December 18, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Shanna Marie]

23 hours ago, Camera One said:

The Writers need an artificial way to keep Rumple and Regina alive and constantly interacting with the other leads... how could that happen if the "heroes" were allowed to kill, imprison, or even hate them?

With this, they were really trying for difficulty points because it's just about impossible to keep the big bads around and integrated into the cast for the duration of the series, whether or not they reform. I've been trying to come up with any example of that working, ever, and haven't managed it. When villains from earlier in the series end up joining with the heroes, it's usually a secondary antagonist or henchman, not the Big Bad, and there's usually a much longer process involved in them changing sides. The closest I can come up with is Captain Renard on Grimm, but he's never been a trusted ally, entirely. He's sometimes teamed up with the good guys against a common enemy, and because they had some major common enemies who threatened all of them, there were a couple of seasons in which he came closer to being an ally, but he was never a real friend, and they never forgot what he did to them. He also turned on a dime when his own interests came in between him and the good guys. That's probably closer to what might have worked with Rumple and Regina.

At least with Regina, she's talked about wanting to be good and hadn't done anything truly villainous (other than re-imprisoning Sydney, I guess) since the end of season two. But the only reason they haven't done anything about Rumple is that the script won't let them. In-story, I guess it's that "he's family" thing, and the fact that he's so overpowered that they can't do much about him, but they've had several opportunities to get rid of him and failed because he has main credits character plot armor, without any in-story justification that makes much sense.

The inorganic writing, doing things for reasons outside the story, is on my list of this show's writing woes.

18 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

It's pretty convenient that outside of the Hero clique and Rumpbelle, Storybrooke never has any problems. All the citizens are law-abiding. They never have any complaints.

Though Aladdin mentioned how easy it was to be a thief since the sheriffs were so busy, so I guess the citizens of Storybrooke have had to deal with a lot of property crime while Emma and David have been off in Camelot or the Underworld or were otherwise busy. More worldbuilding woes -- no thought put into how the town functions, what the legal system is, is there ordinary crime, do they ever deal with "cats in trees" cases -- ordinary small-town police department stuff?

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

Though Aladdin mentioned how easy it was to be a thief since the sheriffs were so busy, so I guess the citizens of Storybrooke have had to deal with a lot of property crime while Emma and David have been off in Camelot or the Underworld or were otherwise busy. More worldbuilding woes -- no thought put into how the town functions, what the legal system is, is there ordinary crime, do they ever deal with "cats in trees" cases -- ordinary small-town police department stuff?

It would have been awesome in S2 to see Emma try to apply American justice to the fairy tale characters - giving Regina a fair trial, for example. They're still in Maine, it's not like they should be able to do whatever they want. It would be so much more interesting if the barriers were down and they had to follow the rules of the real world as to not arouse suspicions. Magic complicates things quite a bit, which makes it even more of a unique challenge for someone like the sheriff.

Edited December 18, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

Another thing that gets me is making characters say things for laughs, when it doesn't seem to fit that character's personality.  Like having Emma say that she wouldn't let someone she likes sleeping on Granny's hard beds.  WTF.

[KingOfHearts]

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

Another thing that gets me is making characters say things for laughs, when it doesn't seem to fit that character's personality.  Like having Emma say that she wouldn't let someone she likes sleeping on Granny's hard beds.  WTF.

You could have thrown that line at any character but Granny. Why couldn't they have just said that Granny's was booked from all the Land of Untold Stories arrivals?

Edited December 19, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

I suppose Emma did sleep at Granny's for awhile, so she would know?  

[Shanna Marie]

4 hours ago, Camera One said:

Another thing that gets me is making characters say things for laughs, when it doesn't seem to fit that character's personality.

That's next on my list of this show's writing problems: inorganic writing. That's when characters are saying and doing things because the writers want them to say or do things, not because they're acting like those characters would act, or, really, like any human being would act. The more different an action is from what a reasonable person would do, the more work it takes to make it make sense. On the more minor level, the inorganic writing gives us stuff like the line about Granny's beds, or Hook commenting on how Emma shouldn't be surprised to find out that the Wicked Witch of the West and flying monkeys are real, given that she's the daughter of Snow White and Prince Charming, when he's from a world where "Snow White and Prince Charming" are just people and not iconic storybook characters. On the more major level, we have Snow becoming best buds with the woman who murdered her father and cast a curse that separated her from her husband and newborn baby for 28 years and then tried to frame her for murder, with hardly even any "frenemy" transition. Who does that? It's so ridiculously hard to believe, especially when the Snow we were shown in season one and the first half of season two had a lot more gumption than that. She had hope, but you didn't get the feeling that she would shrug off decades of abuse on the basis that she was such a brat. Or there's any of them lifting a finger to help save Rumple yet again, after all he's done, and happily co-existing with him in town. Or Emma talking about how her biggest fear is losing yet another man she loves, only to not react at all to watching Hook's heart on the verge of being crushed and then running off to do shots with Regina afterward (or having him die and then come back from the dead, and her run off out of town and leave him behind -- any reasonable person, and especially anyone with Emma's background, wouldn't have let him out of her sight).

Basically, these writers are Isaac, and with the stroke of their pen (or keyboard), they just make these characters do whatever they want them to do rather than considering how they would really act, how anyone in those circumstances would act. It might be possible to get these characters to the places they want them to be, but that would take real writing that takes into consideration the characters and human psychology and that maybe moves things along more slowly, and they'd rather just go "poof" and make it happen.

Really, I think this would have solved the Rumple and Regina problems of keeping the season one Big Bads around for the rest of the series as main characters. If there had been more of a process in those relationships developing, if Regina's redemption had spent more time in the middle ground, moving from reluctant ally to willing ally to frenemy to maybe kind of friends over the course of years rather than one season, it would have felt more organic. I'm not sure how to fix the Rumple problem because according to all story and character logic they should have taken the chance to deal with him ages ago (there's still no logical reason why Robin would have risked anything to get the broken heart potion to save him, and that would have avoided a lot of problems). Rumple is still around not because of any character or story reason, but because Robert Carlyle is one of the stars of the show.