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

[Curio]

What's weird about this show is that it has multiple personalities, so people fall in love with it for vastly different reasons. One half season it's an action adventure fantasy show where the gang travels to a new realm, but the next half season it's a small town soap opera riddled with retcons. The show flips back and forth between different genres so often that it doesn't have a true identity anymore. Every season I like (2A, 3A, Season 3 Finale, 5A) is "OUAT: The Adventure Show" where the main cast travels to a new land. So of course I'm not going to like any other season that isn't like that because it's like I'm practically watching an entirely different show.

The only thing we can rely on every week is poor writing—there will probably be a retcon of some type, we'll probably be forced to feel bad about a villain, there will be a good 20 minutes of exposition and explaining pointless rules, and the characters won't get to talk to each other about their feelings for longer than a minute. Those are the only true threads tying each season together. Beyond that, the writers can do whatever they want. Travel to the Underworld? Why not! Stick around Storybrooke and do a nonsensical author plot? Go for it! 

[Free]

3 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

I personally didn't care for the slower pace of S1. I know a lot of people have missed that, but imo it gets conflated with the better writing quality. It's been evident that the writers are fully capable of snail-speed garbage. While Emma taking forever to believe was organic, it wasn't satisfying to watch Regina repeatedly beat her down simply because she knew the game better. In the long run, huge chunks of S1 ending up meaning nothing because everyone forgot their cursed personalities, Graham's death was never addressed, Regina didn't get punished for her crimes, the MM/David/Kathryn drama had no ramifications, and no one obeyed real world laws after the curse broke. Other than introducing the characters and setting, S1 is one big long wait for the curse to break with some detours to fill the time.

In retrospect, I can totally see why A&E wanted to break the curse halfway through S1.

I'm beginning to miss the format from S3-S5, actually. "Defeat and repeat" was more fun than S6. It got a little repetitive, but it was relatively stable. For the most part, you knew what you were getting. Now it's like, "What surprise retcon from hell am I getting this week?"

Chunks of S1 mean nothing because it's been basically retconned away in the subsequent seasons: the curse, the Dark One mythos, the prophecy, Regina's/EQ's motivations, Rumple's motivations, Baelfire, magic, etc.

I prefer S1 because it's more grounded, and it's not just the same repetitive plot points/devices that got tiresome in the future seasons and straight up unbearable by this season.  I missed the small town community feel and there was better character interactions compared to nowadays.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Free

[andromeda331]

1 hour ago, Free said:

Chunks of S1 mean nothing because it's been basically retconned away in the subsequent seasons: the curse, the Dark One mythos, the prophecy, Regina's/EQ's motivations, Rumple's motivations, Baelfire, magic, etc.

I prefer S1 because it's more grounded, and it's not just the same repetitive plot points/devices that got tiresome in the future seasons and straight up unbearable by this season.  I missed the small town community feel and there was better character interactions compared to nowadays.

I prefer S1 for those reasons. I also loved the building of Emma and Snow's relationship. It was really well done. I liked the building of Emma and Henry's relationship. Emma proved she wasn't going to sit back and take what Regina threw my favorite scene is still Emma taking a chain saw to Regina's apple tree. I liked Snow and Charming's relationship playing out in the flashbacks. Rumple helping Emma because he wanted the curse broken for his own reasons, and he showed genuine remorse for not going with his son. I liked Rumple's reasons being revealed slowly as to why he wanted the curse cast in the first place. In the flashbacks it was fun to see the different characters together Rumple and Belle, Snow and Red, Snow and Charming attending Cinderella's wedding, etc. The small town feel was really nice, seeing Emma slowly helping putting people back together with finding Hansel and Gretel's father, and helping Cinderella along with Emma's talk with Ashley in the beginning I still love her 'There are no fairy godmothers here and punch back" speech it felt like the show was leading characters that maybe magic was causing their problems or at least they should relay on magic completely. Even the most powerful in magic weren't happy.  But there were also fun moments the Dwarfs doing an intervention on Snow White I love how crazy Snow White was in that episode. Emma remarking that she wasn't Snow's mother Snow joking that according to Henry she was hers or when Regina was asking about Emma about August when he first remarked and Emma joking that he was probably someone else she cursed.  It was fun at times and serious at times.

[Inquirer]

Quote

I'm curious as to when the ABC execs told the writers to wrap up the main stories by the end of S6. It's clear by comments from both Dungey and the showrunners that they were told to do so and then told to present their case for a S7 reboot. At the very least, they were told that cast budget would shrink and they would only be able to carry so many regulars into next season if it were to be green lit. It's hard to know with these writers whether they had no plans for wrapping things up and had to adjust accordingly or whether the current storyline was always their plan. I don't care if Josh and Ginny asked for reduced time or not, there was a way to give them a real role in the wrap up of their storyline, not sleep through half of the season. That they did not (and no, waking up now does not count) shows how very little forward planning went into a final season storyline by the writers. Regardless of how much the story meandered throughout the seasons, there should always have been a fairly solid plan for the Final Battle as it were and what we're getting seems very slapdash and haphazard. It almost seems like they were surprised that the stories were running out at the same time contracts were ending and this needed to happen. How could there not have been a plan for this?

According to this article, it was just before the holidays, after the bad reception for the 6A finale had come in, and just before 6x16 was written, which would explain why there is such an obvious, abrupt shift in that episode, with the whole Henry and Isaac subplot leading to the reveal of "the final chapter", and the Black Fairy suddenly being announced to be the one who created the Dark Curse in order to bring things full-circle with S1.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Inquirer

[Shanna Marie]

This show is basically the worst of all worlds. It's not a good character-driven drama because the writing is too shallow. Even when the characters are fairly complex, they only hit the same notes over and over again instead of dealing with the complexity. They also keep resetting, so no one is allowed to grow past a certain point or develop a new thing they need to work on. They're too inconsistent with the characterization, changing it to suit the needs of the plot, and they don't take the time to actually dig into the characters and the relationships. There aren't any real consequences or effects on the characters from the plot events.

At the same time, it utterly fails as a plot-driven fantasy adventure show. The worldbuilding is practically non-existent. They never developed a magical system or any kind of rules around how magic works. They keep changing the major elements of their mythology, like the Dark One, the Dark Curse, the Sleeping Curse, and the Savior. They haven't bothered to develop any kind of culture or society. The plotting is extremely weak, and the pacing is terrible. There's no sense of rising action, just treading water until the finale, when things are resolved out of nowhere. Most of the major turning points aren't set up, while Chekhov's Arsenal sits there, unused.

It had the potential to be either one of these, maybe even a bit of both. It's got an interesting setup and situation, and the characters are good and interesting. But they didn't develop the potential of either their plot or their characters, so we ended up with shallow characters who only have one defining trait or conflict being tossed around by weak plots that go nowhere. I think the potential is what keeps us hanging on, because we keep hoping that maybe this will be the time that we actually see all the possibilities played out, but it's also why we get so frustrated. And meanwhile, the writers are calling themselves "master storytellers" even though they can't be bothered to keep track of their own timeline.

[oncebluethrone]

I would disagree. Completely. Before participating in this fandom, I had never heard of the word "retcon" or thought that the show was bad in any way. I don't think retcon's are bad unless they completely change what we know about a character without a reasonable explanation. Even after reading possibly hundreds of comments on here and other places regarding the fact that the writing is bad or that the characters don't do anything that would be considered growth, I still don't see it when I watch the show and I have seen every episode (up through the Season 5 finale) at least twice. Maybe I am blinded by my love for it or maybe I see it, but am unwilling to accept it, but nevertheless, unless the particular retcon or whatever is painstakingly obvious (Baelfire in 6x13), I don't notice it. As far as the characters go, I think that they are, for the most part, a good balance between the fantasy-adventure aspects and the small-town soap opera aspects. I also don't mind that there isn't an established magic system or that the world building is terrible.

[Shanna Marie]

This post from the spoilers thread (with spoilery content redacted) brought up some things that fit with recent discussion here:

16 hours ago, CCTC said:

One thing this show has not fully understood, is that people love seeing the villain get his or her comeuppance.   ... While a well-done redemption story can be rewarding, in general when someone does horrible things again and again, people want to see them pay and face appropriate consequences.

This is why I can't rewatch season one. Whether or not it's the best-written season, I found it rather oppressive to get through the first time, since the deck was so strongly stacked in Regina's favor. The only way I got through it was by reminding myself that Regina was bound to get her comeuppance, and it would be glorious. There's a quote by Neil Gaiman about the importance of fairy tales, that they teach us that the monsters can be defeated, but we didn't get that. It's hard watching Regina doing all these horrible things to all the other characters while knowing that her life actually got better after this, not worse. She was estranged from Henry and out of office as mayor for about five minutes, but otherwise, she lost nothing and gained the friendship of all the people we spent season one watching her torment. The curse was broken, but that improved her life and caused her no real pain or suffering.

I've been trying to think of any other cases in other shows of a Big Bad villain ending up as a good guy and being friends with the heroes, and I'm stumped. Most of the former villains who join the good guys were henchmen who didn't do a lot of direct harm to the heroes or have a personal beef with the heroes and who in some cases were as much victims of the Big Bads as the heroes were. Or they were more antagonist than villain -- not evil, just doing their job, and they changed sides once they got full information. The closest I can think of was Adalind on Grimm, who devoted much of the first four seasons to a personal vendetta against the heroes, only to change sides and end up in love with the hero, but that was a show-killer. When that happened, the ratings went into a freefall and the show was canceled. When a Big Bad is redeemed, it usually ends in some kind of death or sacrifice, not becoming best buds with the heroes.

Looking at season one, Rumple seems like a more likely candidate for the redeemed villain who joins the good guys. He doesn't do a lot to directly harm the good guys. He does a lot to help them, both in the past and in the present, even though they often have to jump through hoops to get his help. When we learned the reason he was doing everything, the reaction was a big, "Oh, now I get it," and it was a sympathetic reason, as opposed to the "Seriously? That's it?" I had when we learned Regina's reason. Rumple as of the beginning of the season one finale could have worked as the character who switched sides once he had what he wanted. We've never been given a reason for Regina to have changed sides or stopped her quest to destroy Snow.

[Camera One]

Looking at season one, Rumple seems like a more likely candidate for the redeemed villain who joins the good guys. He doesn't do a lot to directly harm the good guys. He does a lot to help them, both in the past and in the present, even though they often have to jump through hoops to get his help. When we learned the reason he was doing everything, the reaction was a big, "Oh, now I get it," and it was a sympathetic reason, as opposed to the "Seriously? That's it?" I had when we learned Regina's reason. Rumple as of the beginning of the season one finale could have worked as the character who switched sides once he had what he wanted. We've never been given a reason for Regina to have changed sides or stopped her quest to destroy Snow.

Considering if he was the one holding the puppet strings in getting the Curse enacted, and grooming Regina to the dark side, he was a huge underlying reason for why Snow, Emma, etc.'s lives were so bad.  He has never been apologetic about that, so it would also have taken a lot for the "good guys" to accept him and for him to be redeemed.  So I never really saw him as a great candidate for redemption either.  I hated how he preyed on vulnerable people... despite free will and decisions, I still find it abhorrent when people prey on those who are desperate.  

[Shanna Marie]

1 minute ago, Camera One said:

He has never been apologetic about that, so it would also have taken a lot for the "good guys" to accept him and for him to be redeemed.  So I never really saw him as a great candidate for redemption either.  I hated how he preyed on vulnerable people... despite free will and decisions, I still find it abhorrent when people prey on those who are desperate.  

I don't know that he was a great candidate, but when you think about it, he makes more sense than Regina during season one.

Rumple: was engineering the curse to get to his son. Took advantage of Regina's existing hatreds to con her into casting the curse. Helped the good guys put things in place to allow them to break the curse, which ruined Emma's life. Helped Emma stand up to Regina, refused to kill Kathryn.

Regina: Chose to cast the curse in order to get revenge on Snow, after trying to kill her multiple times and after murdering Snow's father. Murdered Graham, tried to kill Emma, wanted Kathryn -- the only person who considered her a friend -- killed just to frame Snow.

As of the end of season one, it's easier see the good guys forgiving Rumple once they understood he was trying to reach his son than forgiving Regina for no good reason. After season one, of course, they showed him being a much worse person and he did more horrible things in the past and present. Then again, they also showed Regina doing some awful things in the present in season two and increased the amount of evil she did in the past.

[Camera One]

For sure, the Season 2 flashbacks made them both much worse than they were before.  I don't think the Season 1 flashbacks showed how Rumple not only took advantage of Regina's existing hatreds but fanned them and pushed her towards that direction.  I have no doubt that if Regina had tried to resist, he would just have doubled his efforts.  There was no way he was going to let Regina be executed in "The Cricket Game" for example.  One of the biggest problems with this show is stripping the free will away from a lot of the characters, when it was convenient.  I was quite appalled in Season 1 when Snow couldn't break herself out of the forgetting potion and none of the "goodness" inside of her would have stopped her from killing Regina.  Though frankly, killing Regina was justified.  The later seasons and their retcons just make every little bit of Season 1 questionable.  For example, Charming stopped Snow from killing in Season 1 since it would have darkened her forever, but apparently, it was okay for him to kill the Woodsman?  Huh?  Why did the Writers choose to have Charming kill the Woodsman vs. the Woodsman maybe falling off the cliff (in the 6A episode, whatever it was called)?  These were all deliberate decisions which seemed completely contrary to the world they created.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

The big difference between Rumple and Regina was that Rumple had an underlying good intention underneath his evil. He wanted to get back to his son and make amends, and that's identifiable. Regina, on the other hand, was obsessed with revenge from east to west. Later, the writers tried to make Henry her Baelfire, but that didn't work in S1 or S2 because she was consistently abusing or gaslighting him. Rumple didn't win any Father of the Year awards either, but his paternal love was portrayed as altruistic. I can't remember any scene in S1 that directly implied Regina truly loved Henry or cared about him more than a possession. In fact, one of the biggest plot points was that she didn't love him at all. 

We got to see more human sides of Rumple. Regina was always over the top.

[Camera One]

I didn't know continuity expert Andrew Chambliss (along with Ian Goldberg) was leaving "Once" to become a showrunner on "Fear The Walking Dead" on AMC.  I'm sure he will do great.  He learned from the best!  

[sharky]

45 minutes ago, Camera One said:

I didn't know continuity expert Andrew Chambliss (along with Ian Goldberg) was leaving "Once" to become a showrunner on "Fear The Walking Dead" on AMC.  I'm sure he will do great.  He learned from the best!  

While that's great for them, I do have to wonder how they got those jobs. I mean, have the people at AMC not seen Once?

Although the story that came from said Once was looking for new writers to fill the hole Andrew and Ian are leaving behind, so is that another sign that the show is getting renewed? Or that they are trying a reboot/reset with some fresh blood to help with the course correction?

[Curio]

2 hours ago, sharky said:

Although the story that came from said Once was looking for new writers to fill the hole Andrew and Ian are leaving behind

 

I volunteer as tribute...

[Camera One]

1 hour ago, Curio said:

I volunteer as tribute...

Thank you for your interest.  Please participate in this telephone interview.

1. Recite your favorite lines said by Regina on the show.  You must know at least 50 by heart to continue this application process.

2. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being "in love with" and 10 being "I cosplay daily", how much do you love The Evil Queen?

3. Problem Solving Question.  There are 2 characters on the show that bore you and you don't want to write for them.  What's the most creative way to sideline them?

4. Describe a moment in your life when you identified strongly with Rumple, and how this experience has helped you with your writing process, and life in general.

5. I will give you a word, and you come up with 100 episode ideas that portray this personality trait.  Ready?  Okay, the word is WALLS.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Camera One

[Kktjones]

59 minutes ago, Camera One said:

5. I will give you a word, and you come up with 100 episode ideas that portray this personality trait.  Ready?  Okay, the word is WALLS.

Ok, this one make me spit out my drink. At this point I think all the OUAT writers must have "WALLS-writing expert" on their resumes... 

[andromeda331]

8 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

This post from the spoilers thread (with spoilery content redacted) brought up some things that fit with recent discussion here:

This is why I can't rewatch season one. Whether or not it's the best-written season, I found it rather oppressive to get through the first time, since the deck was so strongly stacked in Regina's favor. The only way I got through it was by reminding myself that Regina was bound to get her comeuppance, and it would be glorious. There's a quote by Neil Gaiman about the importance of fairy tales, that they teach us that the monsters can be defeated, but we didn't get that. It's hard watching Regina doing all these horrible things to all the other characters while knowing that her life actually got better after this, not worse. She was estranged from Henry and out of office as mayor for about five minutes, but otherwise, she lost nothing and gained the friendship of all the people we spent season one watching her torment. The curse was broken, but that improved her life and caused her no real pain or suffering.

I've been trying to think of any other cases in other shows of a Big Bad villain ending up as a good guy and being friends with the heroes, and I'm stumped. Most of the former villains who join the good guys were henchmen who didn't do a lot of direct harm to the heroes or have a personal beef with the heroes and who in some cases were as much victims of the Big Bads as the heroes were. Or they were more antagonist than villain -- not evil, just doing their job, and they changed sides once they got full information. The closest I can think of was Adalind on Grimm, who devoted much of the first four seasons to a personal vendetta against the heroes, only to change sides and end up in love with the hero, but that was a show-killer. When that happened, the ratings went into a freefall and the show was canceled. When a Big Bad is redeemed, it usually ends in some kind of death or sacrifice, not becoming best buds with the heroes.

Looking at season one, Rumple seems like a more likely candidate for the redeemed villain who joins the good guys. He doesn't do a lot to directly harm the good guys. He does a lot to help them, both in the past and in the present, even though they often have to jump through hoops to get his help. When we learned the reason he was doing everything, the reaction was a big, "Oh, now I get it," and it was a sympathetic reason, as opposed to the "Seriously? That's it?" I had when we learned Regina's reason. Rumple as of the beginning of the season one finale could have worked as the character who switched sides once he had what he wanted. We've never been given a reason for Regina to have changed sides or stopped her quest to destroy Snow.

 

6 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

The big difference between Rumple and Regina was that Rumple had an underlying good intention underneath his evil. He wanted to get back to his son and make amends, and that's identifiable. Regina, on the other hand, was obsessed with revenge from east to west. Later, the writers tried to make Henry her Baelfire, but that didn't work in S1 or S2 because she was consistently abusing or gaslighting him. Rumple didn't win any Father of the Year awards either, but his paternal love was portrayed as altruistic. I can't remember any scene in S1 that directly implied Regina truly loved Henry or cared about him more than a possession. In fact, one of the biggest plot points was that she didn't love him at all. 

We got to see more human sides of Rumple. Regina was always over the top.

This was why I was more sympathetic to Rumple's reason then Regina's. He really seemed to regret not going with Bae and everything he did was to get the curse cast to find him. He wanted it cast, and broken so he'd finally be able to do that. We saw his regret throughout season one his talk with Emma when he was trying to convince her to take the walkie-talkies and what he said to August when he thought August was Bae.  Regina didn't seem to regret anything that happened only that she "lost". She also targeted the wrong person. Cora was the one who murdered Daniel, Cora was the one who manipulated Snow White. Regina knew what her mother was like, Snow didn't have a clue who she was dealing with. And she was ten. Regina murdered her father, stole her kingdom and tried to kill her.  She also was willing to rip out her father's heart to cast the curse. She sent children into the Blind Witch's house to steal an apple and Gaslight Henry.

[Inquirer]

The problem is that Rumple also wanted to preserve his power and control over other people, that was the whole point of the True Love potion.  He regretted the wrong choice he made in regards to Baelfire, but that is very different from regretting being a manipulative, murderous sociopath - there was no indication ever in Season 1 that he had any intention of changing his ways after reconciling with his son, quite the opposite actually. 

He was more sympathetic than Regina in Season 1, but that doesn't mean he was redeemable.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Inquirer

[jhlipton]

On 4/8/2017 at 9:14 PM, tennisgurl said:

I actually have a whole different compare/contrast rant about LoT and Once, but that's for another day.

In the Thread for all Seasons thread, I thought of Legends of the Fairy Tales!

On 4/12/2017 at 0:13 AM, Curio said:

I work in a creative 9-5 job and it's exhausting having to be creative every day, all day, all year. So to think of A&E not only having to be creative on OUAT, but also having to be creative on a completely different show with different characters and mythology and settings and...I knew from the get go they couldn't pull it off.

Few showrunners can -- the Jim Borrows, Chuck Lorres, Shonda Rimes, Dick Wolfs, etc are few and far between.

On 4/14/2017 at 2:54 PM, Shanna Marie said:

I've been trying to think of any other cases in other shows of a Big Bad villain ending up as a good guy and being friends with the heroes, and I'm stumped. ... The closest I can think of was Adalind on Grimm, who devoted much of the first four seasons to a personal vendetta against the heroes, only to change sides and end up in love with the hero

My first thought was Sean Reynard who switched sides at the drop of a hat.

[Camera One]

Ian Goldberg was the one who headed "Dead of Summer" with them (he hasn't been working on "Once"), and he's the one going with Andrew Chambliss to showrun the "Walking Dead" prequel.  I guess "Dead of Summer" actually gave Ian Goldberg a career boost?  Who knew...

[Shanna Marie]

21 hours ago, jhlipton said:

My first thought was Sean Reynard who switched sides at the drop of a hat.

I don't think Renard was ever really either a Big Bad or a fully redeemed hero who was friends with the heroes. He switched back and forth between being an "enemy of my enemy" ally and being an antagonist. He's closer to what Rumple is, someone who always has his own agenda which is sometimes aligned with the heroes against some other enemy, sometimes aligned against them.

On 4/14/2017 at 10:54 PM, Inquirer said:

He was more sympathetic than Regina in Season 1, but that doesn't mean he was redeemable.

Neither Regina nor Rumple were what I'd have considered redeemable in season one. The writers have bragged about how from watching season one you'd never believe that Regina would be friends with the heroes, but I don't think that's good writing or complexity. If you're setting up a redemption, there needs to be some clue. It may not be obvious the first time through, but you should be able to look back and see the seeds of it. I don't recall there being many glimmers of humanity in season one Regina. She was worried about Henry when he was trapped in the cave-in and when he was in the sleeping curse, but otherwise, she was willing to hurt Henry to score points against Emma, was willing to let children die in order to make Henry lose faith in Emma, ordered the death of her only actual friend in order to frame Mary Margaret. That's not someone you can see as being redeemable. In contrast, you can look at season 2 Hook and see his potential for redemption. He was the one who took the bigger risk on the beanstalk, drawing the giant's attention so Emma could act, and Emma was the one who doublecrossed him. He saved and returned Aurora's heart, and there was the kicking of the man turned into a fish into the ocean, which looked badass but actually saved his life. All that showed that he had the capacity to be a hero, had some conscience, some empathy. We were lacking those clues from Regina.

[ParadoxLost]

So what do we think?  Is the repetitive use of the B arc themes in dialogue an indicator that the writers are aware of the fact that they do a worse job of setting up stories in the B arcs.   I don't remember them doing this as much in the A arcs. 

And  I think I would remember given how much it makes me want to throw something at the television.

[KingOfHearts]

4A was about "cleaning" and "when the stars in the sky align". 5A was about being a "hero" and "snuffing out the light". 6A was concerned with "untold stories". The A arcs are just as repetitive.

[Camera One]

It's almost amusing to see the Writers weakly attempt to write themselves out of a hole.  They had poor David say, "Uh, we thought the final battle meant the breaking of the Curse."  Yes, because it DID mean that.  The line in the pilot had Rumple say, "The child will find you—and the final battle will BEGIN."  Not begin after 6.75 seasons.  

And LOL at The Black Fairy claiming "I practically invented dark magic." 

Plus now everyone and their grandma uses "Savior" and "The Final Battle" in their vocabulary.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

You know, I think there were fewer and more believable coincidences when Galavant visited the Forest of Coincidence than there have been lately on this show. These writers apparently never learned the lesson that you can use coincidence to make things worse for your characters but you can't use it to resolve problems.

There was that shellphone call that ended the misunderstanding between Emma and Hook, so she realized that he hadn't abandoned her on purpose -- conveniently timed so that the one time he tried calling her, it just so happened to be when she was in the act of carrying his stuff to the shed, so she heard his voice coming from the shell. What are the odds? The easy fix for this would have been to have it be a shell voice mail that repeated the message, and she finally heard it, or for him to have been trying all day to reach her, but she wasn't near the chest and Henry had his headphones on so he didn't hear it, and finally she heard it when she was taking out the chest.

Now we have Hook just happening to end up in Neverland when the portals to Storybrooke are blocked. Tiger Lily just happens to come across him when he's surrounded by Lost Boys (even though she managed to avoid him entirely during the whole 3A visit). She just happens to have the item that's needed to defeat the Black Fairy for him to take to the Savior, and he just happens to be trying to get back to the Savior. The easy fix would have been to indicate that Tiger Lily had done something to summon Hook, like hijacking his bean to bring him there, and the reason she happened to be there when he was attacked was that she was trying to catch up with him ever since his arrival. Though that doesn't fix how she knew that the Savior needed the weapon to defeat the Black Fairy and why she didn't hand it over to Emma when Emma was in Neverland, unless she somehow knew that now was the time.

Then again, on this show, after all the drama about that wand that appears to have been the real reason behind Hook's side adventures, they won't end up using the wand -- the Black Fairy will destroy it before they can use it, or it won't work -- and it will be some other random thing that comes to them out of the blue that defeats her.

[tennisgurl]

2 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

You know, I think there were fewer and more believable coincidences when Galavant visited the Forest of Coincidence than there have been lately on this show.

I always think of that whenever these unbelievable coincidences happen on this show. "Oh, turns out that random guy I killed in another dimension decades ago was actually my fiancés grandpa! What are the odds?" It truly is the Forest of Coincidence! Sad that Galavant created a much better and well written fairytale story through parody then this show does any more through sincerity.

Edited April 17, 2017 by tennisgurl

[Camera One]

I found this old article about Andrew Chambliss.  He signed a two-year deal with ABC in 2014.

http://deadline.com/2014/05/andrew-chambliss-inks-overall-deal-with-abc-studios-724589/

[Tiger]

There was a post somewhere up thread that I can't find now about villains joining the good guys long term and being redeemed along the way, and while not tv the best example I can think of is what the X-comics did with Magneto in the 80's.  From around issue 150 in about 1982 to 280 in 1992, he went from villain to hero and back to villain and each story beat was played and earned. 

It was the complete opposite of what these numbnuts did with Regina where at the end of 3B Gina is suddenly using light magic, gets to join the Charmings for dinner and is instantly redeemed.  They didnt put into work into it.

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

There was a post somewhere up thread that I can't find now about villains joining the good guys long term and being redeemed along the way

Would Spike from BTVS count?

[Tiger]

1 hour ago, KingOfHearts said:

Would Spike from BTVS count?

Good one!  And even there at his closests to redemption in season 6 before the attempted rape, Xander still rightfully treated him like shit and Willow, Tara, and Anya wouldnt have classified him as a friend.

Contrast that to the way everyone treats Regina.  Aside from a few amazing lines like from Charming last week stating that SHE cursed he and Snow, everyone treats her like her like the cool aunt that never did anything wrong.  And that wouldn't necessairly be a problem at this point in the show if Regina had already sacraficed, made amends, and walked the long road of redemption.  Instead she's never taken responsibility or said sorry for anything, is still throwing fireballs, is still keeping hearts in her vault, and still hasnt paid for raping Christian Grey.  

Edited April 18, 2017 by Tiger

[Shanna Marie]

2 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

Would Spike from BTVS count?

Spike was one of my examples in the original post (I think -- at least, I meant to say that), but he was a henchman, not the Big Bad. He was never a primary antagonist. He worked for the Big Bad but was never the main villain the story was about defeating. What I was talking about was the primary antagonist -- the Big Bad, the one the story is about defeating -- becoming one of the good guys. When you spend an entire season or more with the heroes focused on trying to stop the Big Bad and with the Big Bad trying to destroy the heroes, and the Big Bad ends up becoming one of the heroes. That's the swing you don't see too often, mostly because it creates that odd situation of being friends with someone who was trying to murder you, or being friends with someone you hated enough to try to murder.

[ParadoxLost]

12 hours ago, Tiger said:

There was a post somewhere up thread that I can't find now about villains joining the good guys long term and being redeemed along the way, and while not tv the best example I can think of is what the X-comics did with Magneto in the 80's.  From around issue 150 in about 1982 to 280 in 1992, he went from villain to hero and back to villain and each story beat was played and earned. 

Crowley on Supernatural is the closest I can think of from television that fits into the jumping back and forth from being one of the primary antagonist to aligned with the heroes.  He has a kind of enemy of my enemy is my friend approach and desperately wants Dean to like him a lot of the time. 

That kind of thing would probably work better with Regina than them all being one big happy family.  And thinking about it, part of the problem may also forcing the heroes to act too heroically.  They almost have to believe Regina is totally redeemed in order to fight along side her against a common enemy the way they are written. 

The other problem is that the focus of Regina's bad acts are the people who are allying with her redeemed self.  With a Crowley type villain, the motive is generally something else that the heroes are getting in the way of accomplishing.  I would imagine its just easier to make a case for characters accepting redemption if someone tried to kill you because you have something they want versus just wanting you dead because you are who you are.

This isn't one where there was one enemy who joined the heroes because the alliances were too varied and changeable at the beginning.  But on a character to character basis, I think that G'Kar and Londo on Bablyon 5 were one of the better examples of enemies that became friends nearly impossibly and in a way that was satisfying and made sense.

Edited April 19, 2017 by ParadoxLost

[Shanna Marie]

1 hour ago, ParadoxLost said:

Crowley on Supernatural is the closest I can think of from television that fits into the jumping back and forth from being one of the primary antagonist to aligned with the heroes.  He has a kind of enemy of my enemy is my friend approach and desperately wants Dean to like him a lot of the time. 

But here, we're still in jumping back and forth, mostly in an enemy-of-my-enemy situation or when their agendas happen to align (a lot like Renard on Grimm). That's still not the Big Bad going directly to being a hero and best friend of the heroes.

1 hour ago, ParadoxLost said:

The other problem is that the focus of Regina's bad acts are the people who are allying with her redeemed self.  With a Crowley type villain, the motive is generally something else that the heroes are getting in the way of accomplishing.

That's the other issue. It's one thing to end up becoming allies with a former enemy when the enemy only wanted to oppose you because you were getting in the way of his scheme. But Regina's evil was entirely focused on Snow. She became evil because she hated Snow. Her evil acts were all related to Snow -- trying to hurt Snow, angry and killing villagers because they wouldn't give up Snow or liked Snow more than they liked her. And then quite abruptly, she's Snow's best friend and Snow is defending her.

I could see a henchman becoming an ally and eventually a friend, especially if redeemed. I could see a Big Bad who didn't have a personal grudge against the hero becoming an enemy-of-my-enemy type ally when their agendas align. It's harder to see a true Big Bad who has done real harm to the heroes be redeemed without going through a real hitting bottom situation. It's nearly impossible to imagine a true Big Bad with a personal grudge against the hero becoming a hero and a friend of the hero. I would have said it would take better writing than they've got on this show to pull that off, but I'm not sure you could ever consider doing that to be good writing. It's just so against human nature. There would have to be a huge "come to Jesus" type moment in which the villain explicitly saw the error of her ways, and had a reason to have a change of heart, like learning something new or having a realization, and then they'd have to go through a pretty big ordeal together, and the villain would have to do some suffering. Just going "hero now!" isn't very satisfying.

[andromeda331]

5 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

But here, we're still in jumping back and forth, mostly in an enemy-of-my-enemy situation or when their agendas happen to align (a lot like Renard on Grimm). That's still not the Big Bad going directly to being a hero and best friend of the heroes.

That's the other issue. It's one thing to end up becoming allies with a former enemy when the enemy only wanted to oppose you because you were getting in the way of his scheme. But Regina's evil was entirely focused on Snow. She became evil because she hated Snow. Her evil acts were all related to Snow -- trying to hurt Snow, angry and killing villagers because they wouldn't give up Snow or liked Snow more than they liked her. And then quite abruptly, she's Snow's best friend and Snow is defending her.

I could see a henchman becoming an ally and eventually a friend, especially if redeemed. I could see a Big Bad who didn't have a personal grudge against the hero becoming an enemy-of-my-enemy type ally when their agendas align. It's harder to see a true Big Bad who has done real harm to the heroes be redeemed without going through a real hitting bottom situation. It's nearly impossible to imagine a true Big Bad with a personal grudge against the hero becoming a hero and a friend of the hero. I would have said it would take better writing than they've got on this show to pull that off, but I'm not sure you could ever consider doing that to be good writing. It's just so against human nature. There would have to be a huge "come to Jesus" type moment in which the villain explicitly saw the error of her ways, and had a reason to have a change of heart, like learning something new or having a realization, and then they'd have to go through a pretty big ordeal together, and the villain would have to do some suffering. Just going "hero now!" isn't very satisfying.

It would be really hard to believe and that would be assuming the villain did a complete 180, had a come to Jesus moment and showed remorse. Regina hasn't done any of that. She's never apologized, shown remorse, returned the hearts or shown that she was wrong to do anything she did. She was just suddenly not the villain anymore and the heroes suddenly were her best friends, defending her as if she was the best person ever and begging to remain her friend.

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

There would have to be a huge "come to Jesus" type moment in which the villain explicitly saw the error of her ways, and had a reason to have a change of heart, like learning something new or having a realization, and then they'd have to go through a pretty big ordeal together, and the villain would have to do some suffering. Just going "hero now!" isn't very satisfying.

"My Little Pony" is the only show I've seen dip into this territory, and it doesn't really work.

[jhlipton]

2 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

It's nearly impossible to imagine a true Big Bad with a personal grudge against the hero becoming a hero and a friend of the hero.

King Richard on Galavant (since we were just talking about it).  Madeline was possibly the Bigger Bad (or the Big Badder), but Richard was Galavant's enemy for largely personal reasons and became his friend and ally. 

[Shanna Marie]

9 hours ago, jhlipton said:

King Richard on Galavant (since we were just talking about it).  Madeline was possibly the Bigger Bad (or the Big Badder), but Richard was Galavant's enemy for largely personal reasons and became his friend and ally. 

Galavant is an interesting case. I'm not sure they'd have been able to pull that off on a serious show. Richard was a comic character in a comedy that spoofs things like OUAT. If it were a serious show and he had ever been meant to be taken seriously as a villain, I'm not sure it would have worked. Even while he was the Big Bad with a personal grudge against Galavant, he was a comically pathetic figure rather than someone to really dread. He wanted to be liked, was insecure, was capable of kindness even while being so dim and thoughtless that it amounted to evil. There were little touches like him being relatively nice to the Chef or learning the Jester's name when Madelina was sleeping with him and didn't bother to learn it. Meanwhile, we saw that Madelina was the real evil. Before Richard was turned into a hero, a new villain who was an enemy to all of them was introduced, and all of Richard's former allies deserted him. In season two, he was brought down totally. Galavant barely tolerated him and blamed him for their misfortune. He lost his kingdom when the people decided they were better off without him, and then he realized he'd been a terrible king. He pledged himself to help Galavant's cause when he had nothing else to gain from it, no agenda of his own. Only then did he become a hero.

What we're missing with Regina is that losing everything, having a realization about herself, and then siding with the good guys for no reason other than it's the right thing to do.

Really, Regina would have been such an easy fix that I'm still baffled that they didn't do it. In the clocktower when she learns that Cora murdered Snow's mother to set up Regina marrying the king and sees Cora kill Johanna even though Snow gave up the dagger, Regina should have had an epiphany and realized that Cora was the one really at fault, that she'd wasted her life trying to get revenge on Snow when Snow was as much a victim of Cora as she was. Then she should have worked with the Charmings to kill Cora. The failsafe should have been a bit of Pan's technology brought out by Greg rather than Regina's plan to kill everyone, but Regina still should have been willing to sacrifice herself to stop it. Then all we would have needed to get her to the relationship with the heroes that we saw in season 4 would have been her showing empathy during the Missing Year, realizing that what she was experiencing was what she'd put the Charmings through rather than her being entirely focused on her own grief. Then we might have accepted that she really had changed, understood why she changed, and believed her relationship with Snow. We'd still have almost exactly the same plot we got, and it's only minor rewriting to make it work.

[daxx]

I was actually starting to accept Regina's redemption in 3A until the tree of regret incident. That completely put Regina in a different light for me and I haven't bought her redemption since.

How can you be redeemed if you don't regret the horrible things you've done?

[Inquirer]

1 hour ago, Shanna Marie said:

In season two, he was brought down totally. Galavant barely tolerated him and blamed him for their misfortune. He lost his kingdom when the people decided they were better off without him, and then he realized he'd been a terrible king. He pledged himself to help Galavant's cause when he had nothing else to gain from it, no agenda of his own. Only then did he become a hero.

That actually sounds a lot like Arthur on OUAT.  In just one episode, he was redeemed in a better way than Regina was across multiple seasons!

[KingOfHearts]

S1 made more sense as a character-driven story because it was a small-town drama. Other than the FTL and curse stuff, we didn't need a considerable amount of worldbuilding, since it was set in our world with realistic personalities. The scenarios were familiar - custody battles, procedural criminal cases, marital strife, etc. The setup itself was built for focus on the day-to-day lives of the characters.

After the curse broke, the floodgates opened, and suddenly an entire multiverse had to be explained because it was relevant in the present as well. Magic became much more common and central to each episode. Thus, things needed to be come plot-driven due to the increase in potential activity. More things were bound to happen because of the new possibilities opening up. Worldbuilding was critical, but the writers didn't commit to it, and that's why it became a confusing mess.

[KAOS Agent]

I read this article and laughed and laughed. The comments were fun too. "If you have to wait a couple of weeks to get back to the main plot of what’s going on, it’s a tough balancing act. It’s just hard.” Seriously? They don't want to take away from the main plot? Have they even watched their show? I mean this is particularly laughable for this season, but what the hell do they consider the random Dorothy/Ruby episode from 5B if not a completely off track story with side characters that had nothing to do with their main plot? I actually might find this kind of episode interesting. Not that I care about Lily, but it would be nice if the show could acknowledge her and Maleficent. There should even be ways to implement the main cast into the story. Also, if Milah, Gaston and Auntie Em could get out of the River of Lost Souls, I'd be very pleased.

Edited April 26, 2017 by KAOS Agent

[KingOfHearts]

But there's plenty of time to visit Mirror World!

[Camera One]

18 minutes ago, KAOS Agent said:

 Seriously? They don't want to take away from the main plot? Have they even watched their show? I mean this is particularly laughable for this season

A&E are just full of it.  2/3rds of the episodes this season were a complete waste of time, with pointless new characters no one cares about.  Vignette away.  It would be a hell of a lot more entertaining than the "main plot" they're writing.  

ADAM: "There's so much we want to explore with our core characters."  Oh really?  So that's why they go off to sleep for multiple episodes on end?  Or off-screen doing canoe trips, taking care of the baby, and whatever the hell Belle and Rumple are doing?  

Precious real estate my aunt Fanny.  They're basically rearranging garbage cans in a junk yard at this point.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

6 hours ago, Camera One said:

There's so much we want to explore with our core characters.

Basically it's just code for: they can't sacrifice Regina (and Rumple's) sob-stories. That's just showbiz.

[Inquirer]

A&E infuriate me in a way few showrunners do.  A vignette episode would have been great, and there is absolutely NO reason they couldn't do it given that they wasted time this season with several pointless episodes and several pointless ongoing storylines (Snowing's Sleeping Curse, Hook killing David's dad and the drama that caused between him and Emma, the Split Queen situation, etc.)  If the show doesn't get a renewal, then they had better make the vignette episode as a bonus feature on the S6 DVD like that whole Cruella & Sir Mordred Underworld thing on the S5 DVD.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Inquirer

[InsertWordHere]

That article made me incredibly disappointed. We could have gotten an update on the superior redeemed queen but instead we got double Regina? I want to see Anastasia and Will! 

[Inquirer]

At least A&E's repeated referring to her in the present-tense as the Red Queen shows that she and Will haven't actually gotten married and become White Queen and King yet, since that was established to have happened several years after the present day time, when Alice and Cyrus have already had a child.  So we know they get their happy ending, but it's annoying to not know how they get it since they opened that can of worms in S4.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Inquirer

[jhlipton]

22 hours ago, KAOS Agent said:

I read this article and laughed and laughed.

"if we can find ways to slip in bits of it, ...  we’ll do it"
That means: "We'll have some character do a bit of exposition and DONE".

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

That means: "We'll have some character do a bit of exposition and DONE".

They don't even do that much any more.

Edited April 27, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

Adam Horowitz‏ @AdamHorowitzLA  13h13 hours ago

Early concept art of Regina vs Maleficent from season 1 of #OnceUponATime -- hope to see ya Sunday! 

LScott23‏ @LScot23  13h13 hours ago  

This episode was great because it built up how bad & just how dangerous the Evil Queen was. She was willing to attack a friend & dad to win.

Adam Horowitz‏ @AdamHorowitzLA

Replying to @LScot23  Yes! That was the idea. Originally the Stable Boy was going to be episode 2, but we realized it was too soon and needed to build her up 1st

---------

Episode 2 was originally "The Stable Boy"?  What do you all think?  Would that have been better or worse?

How could "The Stable Boy" have been already planned if Snow tells Charming that The Evil Queen targeted her because she was prettier in "Snow Falls"? [added later: never mind, this was from the pilot, but it's still weird that they planned "The Stable Boy" right after the pilot where she said that]

Edited April 28, 2017 by Camera One