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

[Souris]

Adam West's Batman is what shaped A&E.

[Curio]

Quote

Number one: LOVE your characters. There was no way we could love anyone more than Batman and Robin.

Especially love your characters if their name is Regina.

Quote

And each episode’s insane cliffhanger taught us another lesson: the importance of keeping an audience engaged and making them want to know WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.

Ah, so I can blame Adam West for OUAT's obsession with big shocking twists that come out of no where.

[Camera One]

So basically, all that matters to them is what happens next.  Bam!  Pow!  No lasting consequences!  

[Curio]

On 3/6/2017 at 1:04 PM, tri4335 said:

So several months ago, I listened to a podcast with the Modern Family writers - I think it was Fresh Air but can't be positive. But anyways, one of the main points the writers made because they got this all the time from fans is that sitcom characters have no growth. They were very clear that even within an episode the character may learn the lesson and have growth but that growth would not be maintained across to the next episodes. That was what made it a sitcom! For there to be character growth and development, it wouldn't be a sitcom but another genre like drama. 

I've been thinking about that interview in relation to OUAT and I think this is part of A & E's problem. They don't know the type of genre they are writing and thus use rules from several which makes it a hot mess. Last night's episode is the perfect example. In itself it had good dialogue, chemistry between the actors and was entertaining. But once you try to connect it back to other parts of the story it falls apart and you're left standing there exclaiming "WTF"!  If I use the sitcom lens to evaluate the show, it works much better. The problem is that A & E have sold it as a drama with fantasy elements and under that lens it fails.

 

 

Going back to this post for a second...

It's interesting you brought up A&E copying the sitcom structure because I've actually been thinking this show needs to be more like a sitcom. But I don't want it to be like a sitcom in the way you described where none of the characters grow; I want OUAT to be more like a sitcom where the characters are actually allowed to have normal conversations with each other and the mix between comedy and drama is much more balanced. If OUAT followed a sitcom style of writing, we'd spend an entire episode on Hook and Emma decorating their house. A sitcom writer could easily fill up an entire episode with dialogue where the characters talk about random things but those random things also shape who they are as characters. If A&E actually allowed casual conversations between characters, this show could have lasted for over ten years.

But the sad thing is that I watch many modern sitcoms and most of the characters on those shows have actually grown more than some of the characters on OUAT. I think older sitcoms were afraid of letting their characters develop and change too much, but newer sitcoms aren't afraid to be more dynamic and they allow their characters room to grow.

I also agree OUAT has huge identity problems. It doesn't know if Regina or Emma is the most important character. It doesn't know if it's a serious drama or a cheeky soap. It doesn't know if the actors should chew the scenery or play things straight. It doesn't know if it wants to be dark or hopeful. It doesn't know if it wants to be a romantic action/adventure show or a family melodrama. It doesn't know if the villains or the heroes are the heart of the show.

Edited March 8, 2017 by Curio

[daxx]

@Curio like parks and rec where they do evolve and grow, no silly will they won't they but most of the characters once they pick a partner stay with them. 

[Curio]

Exactly the show I was thinking of, @daxx. I was also thinking of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, but on the opposite end of the spectrum where the characters started out seemingly normal and have grown into crazy sociopaths over the years. I'm surprised this show never went that route where they had a character do a slow burn into a villain. If they had kept Neal around, I thought he was going to fill that role, but TS;TW are always so afraid of sending the wrong message because this show is about "hope." But, if they realized the show isn't about hope, characters would be allowed to not only progress into heroes but also revert into villains.

A&E think the only way to have a character change drastically is to turn the villain into a hero. When that's your only option to change drastically over the course of a series, it's no wonder the heroes are considered boring and never get to change much.

(After typing this, I just realized that this is probably what they think they're doing with Snow and Charming, but it doesn't work because 1) they have to retcon the crap out of their canon, and 2) it's never a permanent thing that sticks around for longer than a few episodes. No one ever mentions the egg baby anymore so what's the point of tarnishing your heroes if it isn't going to affect them at all in the long run?)

Edited March 8, 2017 by Curio

[Mari]

I actually am grateful that we never speak of the eggbaby.  I prefer to ignore it as much as possible, and then when forced to think about it, think about it as one of those not-real things.

It was just that bad.

[KingOfHearts]

The writers like to do what I call, "unnecessary revelations". They're not retcons, but explanations of a character's behavior that are not needed in order to understand why they do what they do. For example, in 4x20, we learned Regina had drank an infertility potion. That was meant to show us why Robin having a baby without her was upsetting, and by extension, her painful desire for children overall. However, her barrenness was never mentioned again and in the back our minds, we know it could probably be fixed.

In some cases of an unnecessary revelation, the information is redundant to what we already know. Rumple was left behind by a negligent father, which gave him abandonment and parental issues. That explained his actions concerning Baelfire and his second son. We also knew that he hated fairies because Blue assisted Baelfire in going to the Land Without Magic. With those things in mind, the Black Fairy reveal becomes a double whammy of redundancy. She was meant to expose Rumple's possessiveness of Gideon and his disdain for fairies. But we already had enough to extrapolate with, so her connection was pointless.

This all has to do with how the writers go about their scripts. They want to tell the audience something about a character, without regard to the plot or whether or not the story is congruent with the character's development as a whole. They don't look at the big picture. They only see the needs of an episode. Everything else is painted with broad strokes. This style of writing makes the characters learn the same lessons over and over again, essentially stymieing their progress. Do we need to know Anna taught Charming how to courageous? Is Cleo really necessary to show Emma became a hard-boiled bailbondsperson?

[Curio]

8 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

The writers like to do what I call, "unnecessary revelations". They're not retcons, but explanations of a character's behavior that are not needed in order to understand why they do what they do. [...] Do we need to know Anna taught Charming how to courageous? Is Cleo really necessary to show Emma became a hard-boiled bailbondsperson?

Meanwhile, there are huge chunks of off screen history that does need to be filled in, yet it always gets ignored. How did Hook outrun the curse? When did he run into Blackbeard to trade his ship? When and how did Belle break up with Will? When and how did Regina steal the mayor job away from Snow?

[Souris]

Adam briefly deactivated on Twitter, then reactivated almost immediately.

Apparently SQ/OQ were having a go at him over a certain spoiler from yesterday.

[Camera One]

For example, in 4x20, we learned Regina had drank an infertility potion. That was meant to show us why Robin having a baby without her was upsetting, and by extension, her painful desire for children overall. However, her barrenness was never mentioned again and in the back our minds, we know it could probably be fixed.

I agree it was a pointless revelation.  I think it was also meant to put across the message from the episode that Regina was her own worst enemy.

In terms of long-term, it also provides an extra happy ending for her at the end of the series.

At this point, I think the Writers are basically scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find new "shocking" backstories for these characters.  They don't seem to realize their problem is re-visiting very limited time windows in the past ad nauseum and repeating the exact same themes for each character. 

[Mathius]

Bringing up the infertility potion is funny, given the recent casting speculation.  And yeah, it could probably be fixed, like with Snow in 2x03.

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

At this point, I think the Writers are basically scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find new "shocking" backstories for these characters.  They don't seem to realize their problem is re-visiting very limited time windows in the past ad nauseum and repeating the exact same themes for each character. 

If they want to do flashbacks and character stories, they should be doing that for new or guest characters. If they spent time developing relationships between the main characters and guest characters, that would create some emotional cohesion. They wouldn't need to resort to cheap twists like Zelena being Regina's half-sister or Ingrid being Emma's foster mom. They had the right idea when they made Jasmine an aide for Snow, but the writers didn't spend enough time building their dynamic. Those two became besties overnight without really getting to know each other. Also, having the main characters walk through different realms helps weave them into the current narrative. They're made relevant in the present, rather than being forced into it in their pasts.

IMO, it was a big mistake to drop the "let's spend half the season in x franchise" formula.

Edited March 10, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

Quote

If they spent time developing relationships between the main characters and guest characters, that would create some emotional cohesion.

The Writers seem allergic to that for the most part.  They brought back Lancelot for what reason exactly?  He was one of the guest stars who was only in one episode and instantly clicked with Snow and Charming.  But in 5A, they again only really used him in one episode.  It is very rare that there is sustained relationship building with guest stars.  4A was an exception, when A&E were under the watchful eye of Disney.  Otherwise, they might have tossed aside the Elsa doll much earlier.  

Snow and Jasmine didn't work because the whole setup was idiotic, unconvincing, banal, pointless and insulting to the two actresses and their characters.  It was the equivalent of throwing those two into a meat grinder, what with Jasmine's never-ending whining about saving Agrabah and Snow giving horrible advice like rub the genie's lamp, it worked great for my father!  Seriously, was ANY thought put into Snow's dad at all in the Writers' Room when they gave Snow that line?

Edited March 10, 2017 by Camera One

[sharky]

1 hour ago, KingOfHearts said:

If they want to do flashbacks and character stories, they should be doing that for new or guest characters. If they spent time developing relationships between the main characters and guest characters, that would create some emotional cohesion.

But when they did that, I don't think it worked. Remember the Frozen half season? Everyone somehow was connected to Elsa and Anna. David met her when he was a shepherd, Anna and Belle went on an adventure, etc. It seemed so contrived. They had a huge spike in ratings from the first few Frozen episodes and then everything came crashing down for a reason. So it may sound good in theory, but it ends up being crap. Frankly, what they should've done at some point is completely trash the flashbacks. They take too much time out of the real story and watching Regina kill another village serves no purpose.

[KingOfHearts]

Just now, sharky said:

But when they did that, I don't think it worked. Remember the Frozen half season? Everyone somehow was connected to Elsa and Anna. David met her when he was a shepherd, Anna and Belle went on an adventure, etc. It seemed so contrived. They had a huge spike in ratings from the first few Frozen episodes and then everything came crashing down for a reason. So it may sound good in theory, but it ends up being crap. Frankly, what they should've done at some point is completely trash the flashbacks. They take too much time out of the real story and watching Regina kill another village serves no purpose.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I agree, the Frozen connections were contrived and dumb. What I meant was something like this - if the group had actually gone to Arendelle, or developed relationships with the Frozen characters in Storybrooke, it would have been more organic. They didn't need to be shoehorned into the past. They could have gotten to know one or another and become emotionally invested by forming new connections in the present.

[Camera One]

I think they did a good job in Storybrooke with Emma and Elsa.  They could have expanded upon that and given Elsa scenes with Snow, for example, but that scene was cut.  However, I think Elsa did have scenes with Hook, which was nice.

Quote

David met her when he was a shepherd, Anna and Belle went on an adventure,

I think they had difficulties figuring how to use the Anna character since she had to be absent in the present-day.  One error was making Anna into some Pollyanna character who was better than everyone else.  They could have written a much better episode even if they had to make David and Anna meet.  Think about what similarities they had (eg. never really getting to know their siblings).  Belle's one was bad as well, since the point was to show what a bad person she was to choose a rock over Anna.  All these flashbacks were one-offs, so there was no time to develop any deep connection.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

3 hours ago, Souris said:

Adam briefly deactivated on Twitter, then reactivated almost immediately.

Apparently SQ/OQ were having a go at him over a certain spoiler from yesterday.

And yet these are the fans he panders to. I really don't get that. If I got that kind of treatment from a group of fans, their chosen characters would never so much as speak to each other again. But he really can't take any criticism, so he tries to appease them and keep them happy, even though he's never going to entirely give them what they want. 

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

I think they had difficulties figuring how to use the Anna character since she had to be absent in the present-day.  One error was making Anna into some Pollyanna character who was better than everyone else.

That was the problem. Why couldn't brave shepherd David have rescued naive Princess Anna? Or why couldn't she have just come to him for help, and they headed out on some quest together and had adventures along the way? They could have done some fun things with Anna's journey around their world as a way of shedding light on parts of the story we hadn't seen.

In the present, it might have been interesting to have more interaction between Elsa and Hook. The scenes they had were a lot of fun, and there was so much potential, since they were both in the fish out of water role, with him knowing only slightly more about that world. He, of all people, would have understood and appreciated the search for a lost beloved sibling and not wanting to let go and give up.

[Shanna Marie]

On 3/9/2017 at 2:27 PM, Curio said:

Meanwhile, there are huge chunks of off screen history that does need to be filled in, yet it always gets ignored. How did Hook outrun the curse? When did he run into Blackbeard to trade his ship? When and how did Belle break up with Will? When and how did Regina steal the mayor job away from Snow?

Or how about the big one, how did they win the war against George and Regina? Especially given their whole "heroes don't kill people" stance? What did they do, make the enemy army drop their weapons with the power of their hope and love? Or did Rumple decide it was about time to nudge Regina closer to casting the curse and pop in on the Charmings with "I can help you win the war, dearie, but it comes at a price"? We went from them pretty much being on the run, with George's soldiers going after David's family, to them being victorious, with Regina in custody, and no word of how they pulled that off, where they got their army, etc. While it would have been fun to see Hook outrunning the curse and negotiating with Blackbeard, we pretty much know what happened, and I'm not sure that seeing it now would add anything. But we have no idea how the end of the war came about.

One of the problems with those big revelation flashbacks is that they seem to forget that while these may be revelations to us, this isn't news to the characters. Even if the writers just came up with these big twists, the characters have known about these events all along. That means that the ones that work the best are the ones that are less surprising (and maybe less interesting). So, yeah, we didn't really need to see that Regina was barren because she drank a potion to spite her mother, but on the other hand, it fit with what we'd seen of Regina. It kind of explained her weird thing with kids, trying to steal Hansel and Gretel away from their father, trying to steal Owen, adopting Henry. It wasn't a surprise, but it did make sense. And then there's the eggnapping, where we're supposed to believe that this was in the Charmings' past all along while we saw them awaiting Emma's birth and knowing they might be separated from her at birth, while they went through another pregnancy, when they were reunited with Emma, etc. It's really hard to believe they never so much as mentioned it to each other or worried about it while they were going through parallel situations. Not to mention, we're supposed to believe that Emma was artificially short on darkness the whole time? Or that her parents were worried about how she'd turn out? As the show continues and we see more of them in the present, it's harder to throw in twists from the past that you can imagine never came up all this time. If you're going to do this kind of thing, you need to have a character bible and know exactly what's in the characters' pasts, write accordingly, and clue in the actors.

[Camera One]

Oh boy, guess what Adam and Eddy's favorite "Buffy" moment is?  

Quote

Adam Horowitz and Edward Kitsis (ABC’s ‘Once Upon a Time’)

The episode “Prophecy Girl,” the Season 1 finale, contained one of the most heartbreaking moments we’ve seen on television when Buffy learned she was prophesied to die. In this moment, you really understood Buffy’s dilemma. She just wanted to be a normal student going to prom, and not a slayer who had to fight evil. It was emotional and visual and represented genre at its best by making the most seemingly outlandish premise grounded, human, relatable and moving.

Storyline rip-off, anyone?

Edited March 11, 2017 by Camera One

[Camera One]

20 minutes ago, Curio said:

Wow, of course they would consider changing it. Even though it was obvious Neal was Bae, it wasn't necessarily a bad thing that it was obvious. This is what trips A&E up—they think if the audience automatically guesses the correct outcome that the story won't be as exciting, but more often than not, the story is actually more riveting when the audience can put the puzzle pieces together and guess what's going to come next. Even though I correctly guessed Neal was Bae, it didn't detract from my viewing experience. In fact, it was nice to have my assumption proved correct. It's like A&E totally freaked out about the audience correctly guessing Neal was Bae and they decided to never drop hints along the way ever again...thus the random deus ex machina reveals during the finale episodes.

Yes, this fear of anyone guessing their twists.  Did you all guess that the Black Fairy would be Rumple's mother, when discussing it in the spoiler room?  Not that the reveal was satisfying at all, partly because his mother had never been brought up nor mentioned, so there was zero anticipation for it.  Kinda like Hook's random half-brother or Zelena being Regina's sister.  It's really hard to care when a new development feels tacked on.

[oncebluethrone]

I might be in the minority here, but I actually like all the surprises and twists.  I already tend to know a lot of spoilers so being surprised is actually nice whether or not there was any lead up to it.  I suppose I find anticipation through spoilers and not necessarily watching the show.

[Curio]

I like being surprised too, as long as it makes sense within the story and there were clues dropped along the way. For example, the Dark Hook reveal where he rose out of the ground was one of the better surprises they've pulled off. I was spoiled for that season, but I still didn't see that coming. But what was good about that surprise is that they at least attempted to show signs of Hook being that way throughout 5A and it made sense to push his character to that limit because he's the one character on the show who has always had a beef with the Dark One, so becoming the thing he hates most was good for character development. But then there are the random surprises like Marian revealing herself as Zelena which seemed to directly contradict Marian's actions in 4A, and that's when I don't want to be surprised. Being surprised without any lead up technically isn't a surprise, it's deception. 

Edited March 12, 2017 by Curio

[Souris]

Yeah, you have to be able to look back and see that there were clues for surprises to work, make sense and be satisfying. Otherwise, they're just cheap, unsatisfying shocks.

[Camera One]

I have a question about how the Writers pace their stories.  So Charming got that coin from The Evil Queen in Episode 2, but they come back to it in Episode 12?  What is the reasoning behind this?

[Curio]

Quote

@JaneEspenson
Hey, @JeromeSchwartz, I think we're a hit! Seeing lots of love for our #OnceUponATime ep tonight.

Yes, Jane, you deserve a lot of love for a good 95% of that episode. That other 5% though...

[daxx]

I am sure the Hook killing Robert was all A&E's doing...

[Curio]

Jane: Wow, this is a really great script! 
Jerome: Yeah, I'm glad we were finally able to explore David and Hook's relationship more.
Jane: I can't wait to see what Josh and Colin do with the counterclockwise bit--
A&E: EVERYBODY STOP! There aren't enough murders in this script!
Jerome: I think it's fine as is--
A&E: Have Hook go on a murdering spree in the final three minutes! Have him kill Charming's father!
Jane: Isn't that what everyone will be expecting? I've seen fan theories about that online since July...
A&E: DO IT! 

Edited March 13, 2017 by Curio

[Camera One]

Hook killing David's father would have been their "bright" idea during the pre-season 'big twist' breakdown, no doubt, and these writers would have been complicit.

ADAM: So, what should David's arc be this year?

WRITERS' ROOM: ...

EDDY: Agreed.  He's boring as hell.  But well, clever us set up the mystery of David's dead drunk dad.  Remember how we came up with that because everything started with the letter d?

WRITERS' ROOM: Hahahahahahahahaha.

ADAM: Time to start "Wouldn't it be cool if..."

EDDY: Wouldn't it be cool if we fooled the audience by having an ENTIRE episode about how someone else killed David's dad and then we find out it's actually Hook?

ADAM: Draaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaama.  That secret and ensuing conflict will drive half a season!  Along with David's Daughter Dies!  

EDDY: Now who won the award by upping the ante in Regina's villany several times in the past....  Yes, Jane.  One-up your last success with this episode and make David's dad's death devilishly delicious!

Edited March 13, 2017 by Camera One

[Free]

22 hours ago, Souris said:

Yeah, you have to be able to look back and see that there were clues for surprises to work, make sense and be satisfying. Otherwise, they're just cheap, unsatisfying shocks.

Especially knowing some of the spoilers later on into the season, it makes even less sense.

[Curio]

6 minutes ago, Camera One said:

Hook killing David's father would have been their "bright" idea during the pre-season 'big twist' breakdown, no doubt, and these writers would have been complicit.

Now I'm imagining this narrator talking about the OUAT writers' room and how they're all complicit to every terrible retcon.

[Camera One]

4 hours ago, Curio said:

"I've told you before I'm sick of living in the past. How many times do we need to have this conversation?"
"Until the series dies?"

It's almost astounding how the Writers bend over themselves to re-create the same character notes every single season.  It's just Hook's turn this week.  This is the same plotline as his secret with Ursula, except they upped the ante and now he killed Emma's grandfather.  

So far in Season 6, they spend an entire arc on Emma's WALLS again, Belle trying to figure out her relationship with Rumple again, now defending some evil villain with a "good heart" - again, Rumple's now dealing with an estranged son - again, Snowing dealing with The Evil Queen - again, Regina fighting with her sister - again, Charming and Snow separated - again.

Edited March 13, 2017 by Camera One

[Camera One]

5 minutes ago, tri4335 said:

I think that this is just an expression of A & E's Joss Whedon love but instead of everyone dies by the end of the show in A & E's world everyone will be a murderer.  I mean at this point the only one left who hasn't murdered someone is Henry and one could argue he killed the "pen"!

I really think this will be A&E's only legacy in television writing.  Is this the first time a Writer has come up with the idea that a "pen" can die?  

I am imagining a spinoff called "The Walking Pen".  In Season 1, he must find ink and save his friend Pencil from the enemy: White-Out.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Camera One

[Mari]

Its siblings, Invisible Ink and Neon Pastel Ink--evil, misunderstood, or jolly fun?

[Shanna Marie]

I've come to the realization that a big part of the problem with the writing on this show is that it's lazy. The writers do seem to have some imagination in coming up with the concept and some of the ideas, but they don't really do anything to develop those ideas. They just stop with the most obvious thing and don't bother digging deeper or looking for something less obvious. Then there are their ruts where they just repeat the same beats over and over again -- which is still that going with the obvious, the first thing that comes to mind. If they were writing mysteries, every one would be "the butler did it."

Also, I suspect they really are Isaac -- hack, lazy writers who think they're all that, and they want to tear down heroes and make villains look better because that makes them feel better about not having done anything with their lives more heroic than being TV writers.

[Camera One]

Who knew it was possible, but my view of them went down a lot after this week's episode.

[KingOfHearts]

Losing memories has become such a huge crutch for the writers. They abused it in 4A and 5A, and now it's the easy way to make cheap retcons. If they want to keep the audience in the dark about something in order to preserve the "shocking twist" moments, all they have to do is inject a contrived memory potion. The lack of memories did work in S1 and 3B, but after that, the writers didn't want to imagine reasons for why characters would hide or not be knowledgeable of critical information. The real problem is an over-reliance on flashbacks and using the past to fuel the plot at all times. They are so terrified of moving forward and creating new developments. They'd rather retcon the past instead of push their characters into uncharted territory. 

Let's replace the time spent on the Bae retcon with showcasing other characters or giving Beowulf a legit story. (Rather than just inserting him for the nameplate.)

Edited March 20, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

I've always been a proponent of continuing the series despite the quality drop, but this week's episode has changed that for me.  For two weeks in a row now, they have made clunky retcons which were unnecessary and damaging for the sake of drama (last week) or excusing the villains (this week).  

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if they threw in a flashback where Regina was all ready to divorce Leopold and leave his castle and give up magic, but Young Snow stabbed Regina's father in the neck, and she had to use dark magic to bring him back, and then gave Snow a memory potion.  

If the Writers need to destroy their own characters and original plotlines to come up with story, then the well has dried up and there is no point in continuing on.

[Curio]

6 minutes ago, Camera One said:

I've always been a proponent of continuing the series despite the quality drop, but this week's episode has changed that for me. For two weeks in a row now, they have made clunky retcons which were unnecessary and damaging for the sake of drama (last week) or excusing the villains (this week).  

I'm kind of with you. As depressing as it would be saying goodbye to this forum and all the lovely discussions here, it's clear that this show is falling off the rails hard. The sad thing is the writers don't have to retcon things if they just gave up the flashback formula. That's the main reason why we have to suffer bad retcons, but if they let go of the flashbacks and only focused on telling a present story (which is what most of the audience is invested in now anyways), this show could go on for years. Save the flashbacks for special occasion episodes, like maybe two or three a year. But they're trying to squeeze square pegs into round holes at this point, and most of the audience has checked out because of it.

[Rumsy4]

6 minutes ago, Camera One said:

I've always been a proponent of continuing the series despite the quality drop, but this week's episode has changed that for me.  

I've never dropped a Show this late in the game, but I haven't watched last night's episode yet, and am seriously wondering whether to take a break until/if things get marginally better. Thanks, A&E, for turning off even the most die-hard viewers of the Show!

[tri4335]

13 minutes ago, Camera One said:

I've always been a proponent of continuing the series despite the quality drop, but this week's episode has changed that for me.  For two weeks in a row now, they have made clunky retcons which were unnecessary and damaging for the sake of drama (last week) or excusing the villains (this week).  

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if they threw in a flashback where Regina was all ready to divorce Leopold and leave his castle and give up magic, but Young Snow stabbed Regina's father in the neck, and she had to use dark magic to bring him back, and then gave Snow a memory potion.  

If the Writers need to destroy their own characters and original plotlines to come up with story, then the well has dried up and there is no point in continuing on.

Well played @Camera One well played. I think you've hit the nail on the head as Snow is the evil of all evils!

[Camera One]

12 minutes ago, Curio said:

I'm kind of with you. As depressing as it would be saying goodbye to this forum and all the lovely discussions here, it's clear that this show is falling off the rails hard. The sad thing is the writers don't have to retcon things if they just gave up the flashback formula. That's the main reason why we have to suffer bad retcons, but if they let go of the flashbacks and only focused on telling a present story (which is what most of the audience is invested in now anyways), this show could go on for years. Save the flashbacks for special occasion episodes, like maybe two or three a year. But they're trying to squeeze square pegs into round holes at this point, and most of the audience has checked out because of it.

As you said in the episode thread, the logical flashback for this episode was a Gideon flashback.  But once again, they're clearly delaying that because there is some dumb twist they want us to wait for.  Plus they are just so determined to "redeem" Rumple yet again in their never-ending Rumbelle breakup/makeup cycle.

The Writers don't seem to understand if a viewer can't buy into the retcon in the flashback and I can't buy into the premise in present-day Storybrooke with Gideon's idiotic reasoning, the result is they are completely disconnected and disengaged.  That was how I felt about "Ill-Boding Patterns".  I know a lot of people enjoyed Wish Robin, but I didn't, so the ENTIRE episode fell flat, and that has never happened with me before with this show.

Edited March 20, 2017 by Camera One

[Mathius]

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

I've always been a proponent of continuing the series despite the quality drop, but this week's episode has changed that for me.  For two weeks in a row now, they have made clunky retcons which were unnecessary and damaging for the sake of drama (last week) or excusing the villains (this week).  

Glad to have you on board.  I've been a proponent of "end this p.o.s show" for the entirety of this season.

[Camera One]

Like the characters on this show, I might drink a Memory Potion and reboot next week and go back to talking about Hope™.

[Rumsy4]

The writing has hit a new low this season--and I'm wondering how these same writers produced anything other than dreck in the previous 5 seasons. Granted--it's the same writing problems compounded 1000-fold this year, but it still doesn't compute. As someone posted in the episode thread, the writers seem to go out of their way to disrespect the characters, actors, and fans this year. It doesn't make sense. Was there a ghost-writer in their midst until now?? Is this because the outline Damon Lindeloff helped them come up with was only for five seasons? I mean, why??!

[KingOfHearts]

3 minutes ago, Rumsy4 said:

The writing has hit a new low this season--and I'm wondering how these same writers produced anything other than dreck in the previous 5 seasons. Granted--it's the same writing problems compounded 1000-fold this year, but it still doesn't compute. As someone posted in the episode thread, the writers seem to go out of their way to disrespect the characters, actors, and fans this year. It doesn't make sense. Was there a ghost-writer in their midst until now?? Is this because the outline Damon Lindeloff helped them come up with was only for five seasons? I mean, why??!

It seems to me that the writers are just phoning it in now. They're no longer interested in what they're writing. I've been rewatching the earlier seasons, and even though sometimes their work is terrible, you'll notice more passion put into it. (Yes, even in 4B.) They were never sold on LoUS, Aladdin, or anything else they've been doing in 6A, and thus it's not nearly as complete.

Quote

Is this because the outline Damon Lindeloff helped them come up with was only for five seasons?

Did someone somewhere mention they had a long-term plan for 5 seasons, or am I just making that up?

Edited March 20, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

They're arrogant as hell and continue to believe they're writing good stuff.  They're now fully writing the show they want to write.  Phoning it in suggests they recognize there is a problem and couldn't be bothered to fix it.

Edited March 20, 2017 by Camera One

[Camera One]

Since there was nothing funny about the episode, we must turn to Twitter.

Jane Espenson‏ @JaneEspenson  Mar 16
You clamored for Beowulf, we're giving you Beowulf!

jan ; swan ‏ @novaksmiths  Mar 16
When did people ask...?

Jane Espenson‏ @JaneEspenson
@novaksmiths Well, I just assumed people were clamoring somewhere.

--------

Brigitte Hales‏ @InkTankGirl  18h18 hours ago
Oh, @bexmader! She is so, so, so much fun to watch. And I love her green fireball!

Brigitte Hales‏ @InkTankGirl  18h18 hours ago
Also, love Gold and Gideon together. @gilesmatthey kills it in this role.

Brigitte Hales‏ @InkTankGirl  18h18 hours ago
So fun seeing slices of early Rumple's timeline. Love when the show dives into its deep mythology.

-------------

"Dives into its deep mythology"?  "Diving off the deep end" might be a more fitting idiom.  And Gideon, he really killed it, alright... the ratings, that is.  Oh well, at least we have those entertaining green fireballs.

[Curio]

"I heard people were clamoring to retcon Bae into a murderer. I don't know who or where, but I assumed people were clamoring for it."

[Rumsy4]

41 minutes ago, Camera One said:

Jane Espenson‏ @JaneEspenson
@novaksmiths Well, I just assumed people were clamoring somewhere.

Is this for real??! Speechless...