OnceUponAJen January 19, 2015 Share January 19, 2015 (edited) Honestly, I think the writers should stick to the story they want to tell. As for shippers, there is a ship for every conceivable prurient interest imaginable. Some may be more vocal than others, but that doesn't mean that their particular interest serves the overall story. I think Twitter can be particularly poisonous, and I hope the writers/show runners don't pay the feedback there too much attention. I have never really spent energy in investing in character relationships unless I see that the intent is to "go there" with the plot. I can see where fan input can be valuable, such as running movies past target audiences before release (which has been done forever...I remember reading an account of "Gone With the Wind" being screened with a test audience). However, I want them to be true to their vision. I think pleasing too many factions is a slippery slope and ends up pleasing no-one. Edited January 19, 2015 by OnceUponAJen 5 Link to comment
Shanna Marie January 19, 2015 Share January 19, 2015 One huge issue with either Emma or Snow wanting to be Regina's friend is the fact that I don't think Regina has ever said she's through with trying to destroy them. I'm not even talking about this as being part of her redemption -- admitting that it was wrong for her to blame Snow for everything that went wrong with her life and that all the things she did because of that were wrong -- or even an apology. I'm just talking about the very practical and logical problems with anyone wanting to be friends with someone who spent so much time trying to destroy them without that person ever having said they were through with that. It's not safe or smart. At least Hook and Rumple had their "I won't kill you if you don't try to kill me" pact before they headed to Neverland, but as far as I can recall, Regina has never said anything about giving up on trying to destroy Snow and ruin her happiness. That's why all this "please be my friend, Regina" stuff is nonsense, even aside from redemption, giving people second chances, never giving up on people and all the other platitudes. When someone has made killing someone else a life goal, why would the target or anyone close to the target choose to hang out with the would-be killer without some kind of assurance of safety? All they have is the somewhat nebulous fact that Regina wants Henry to love her and Henry won't love her if she kills the rest of his family (never mind that they've shown her erasing his memory, so even that isn't an assurance). That's too massive a logical leap to overcome. Going back to the season arc discussion (since I was at a conference for the past few days), I like the idea of a somewhat self-contained arc set within the overall story, with the personal stories continuing from arc to arc -- kind of like the way mystery book series often go, with a murder plot for each book while the character and relationship arcs and maybe some big-picture arcs span the entire series. In theory, that would keep things focused and more coherent. In practice, it hasn't quite worked out that way. 3A's flashbacks were as disjointed and random as in season 2, being more thematic than actually building a story that shows how things got to where they are. Instead of telling the backstory of Neverland and what went into getting them to this place, it was mostly a case of "this episode is about believing in yourself, so we'll have a flashback about someone having to believe in herself." 3B was a little better in that respect, but the problem there was that the villain came out of thin air, so her backstory barely intersected with anyone else's. They could have used the Missing Year-backs for that purpose but then failed entirely. And that tighter arc structure has really not helped with the present-day story, since they seem to be holding everything back for the big finale, and that means a lot of wheel spinning along the way while the big finale is underdeveloped. But the real issue with the arc structure is that it seems to have been the solution to a misdiagnosed problem -- it was their answer to the mid season 2 ratings freefall. They seem to have decided that the ratings cratered because the schedule was so scattershot (possible) and because there was no one strong element to promote (also possible). So structure the season in two arcs with little interruption between episodes and a bigger mid-season gap between stories and have an iconic guest character to build the arc around, and it should solve the problem. Even if those things were true, though, it didn't address what I think (based on informal surveys of people who started watching the show in season one and gave up on it at about the time of the big ratings drop) was the real issue: Regina. When I talk to people at conventions or online and they mention watching the first season but dropping out along the way, every one of them has said they lost interest when the show became all about Regina, or when Regina went from being the fierce Evil Queen to a whiny victim or when Snow went from being a feisty badass to having to grovel to Regina. The writing of 2B was markedly different where Regina was concerned. She'd been making progress toward what could have been a real redemption, and then suddenly she was made a victim, she started flip-flopping, she was turned into a hero without any kind of redemption moment where she realized she was wrong, and the other characters were sacrificed on her altar. It was like Regina herself had ripped out the hearts of the writers and was whispering over them to dictate the scripts -- except I suspect that season one Regina would have sneered at these scripts. Meanwhile, the show lost what had been fun in the first season. One of the best fairy tale twists had been taking the too-sweet-to-be-true Snow White, as she was portrayed in the Disney movie, and making her into a badass bandit who still managed to retain that iconic sweetness. It was the clashing between Emma and Regina that was fun -- Regina trying to undermine Emma while maintaining the veneer of propriety while Emma went down and dirty with a chainsaw. The ratings were at their best when the show was like this, so I don't understand why they're steadfastly clinging to the changes they made that went along with the ratings slide while throwing out the stuff that worked in the first place. The arcs help with scheduling and give them something they can more easily promote, but until they fix the writing they're putting bandaids on broken bones. 9 Link to comment
Mari January 19, 2015 Share January 19, 2015 (edited) A&E have done a lot of token fan service, especially from Season 3 onwards once the shipping became more extreme. But I think overall, they are still basically writing what they want, which is a vehicle for shiny new toys, twists and delicious villain moments along with sob stories. One huge issue with either Emma or Snow wanting to be Regina's friend is the fact that I don't think Regina has ever said she's through with trying to destroy them. Absolutely. But, I continue to be absolutely floored by how very bad A&E are at fanservice and fitting in their little side trips. The thing is, this is a show that could easily, easily do weird little fanservice/fantasy what-ifs to please the fans and themselves, without damaging the overall story--and still getting the same point across. For example, in the Episode-Which-Shall-Not-Be-Named, the problem was that Regina's hour long hissy fit not only didn't benefit the overall story, but it was out of character for Emma to just allow Regina to scream at her for the evening. If allowing Emma to stand up for herself was going to take them out of their bizarre Regina-Yells-at-Emma fantasy, with very little effort they could have had nearly the same episode. All they would have had to do was have Emma and Regina cooperating civilly but coldly to get the information, and then stumble into a anger/victim making spell. Regina could screech to the writers' hearts' content, Emma could cringe and apologize over and over again, and then after the spell was broken, there's closure with Regina muttering something like "some of that was a little over the top." and Emma responding with "yeah, a little" and then they move on to blaming the person who set the spell trap and whatever comes next in the bigger story. Edited January 19, 2015 by Mari 5 Link to comment
KingOfHearts January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 (edited) It was entirely possible to build a friendship for Regina and Emma that didn't ... do that. Definitely. It's possible to be standoffish without being mean. (See: Elsa, who it was supposed to freaking parallel) If Regina had just said, "Please I just want to be alone right now", or "This is my fight", it would have been much more in-character. The insult-hurling was so 2B. How do you go from drinking coffee together on a stake-out and talking about your shared child to outright verbal abuse? Regina was mad at Emma yes, but even earlier in 4A she wasn't as mean. Occasional snark is fine ("I think you're bitter and you're taking it out on the wrong person"), but a waterfall of disdain is not friend behavior. Writers, your incoherence should be illegal. Edited January 20, 2015 by KingOfHearts 5 Link to comment
YaddaYadda January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 Regina was mad at Emma yes, but even earlier in 4A she wasn't as mean. But even then, during 403, Emma had already had it with Regina, she told her point blank that she was bitter and taking it out on the wrong person which in short meant back off and she wasn't taking her shit. What happened between 403 and 405 where Emma is okay taking that from Regina is a mystery, then 406 comes on and it's like nothing happened. they're standing there in DQ's truck and Regina is asking Emma if the stuff Ingrid had on her was during her time in foster care and before that there was the whole video viewing. I swear, whiplash. I wonder if the writers actually look at the previous scripts before they write their own. Regina can be pissed at Emma all she wants because she is immature that way, but 405 was just way over the top even for her. And the whole I don't wanna kill you line...Jeebus! Again, saving a life shouldn't warrant so much grief towards the person who did the saving. Maybe people should start lining up and giving Snow a verbal smackdown for ruining their lives by saving Regina, sparing her life and whatever else when she was full on Evil Queen because she took revenge on their villages and loved ones. Sparing the life of someone who is evil which had consequences on tons of people is a good thing. Saving the life of an innocent who was trying to also save the life of an innocent is not okay. 6 Link to comment
KAOS Agent January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 I think my greatest problem with the writing of Regina is that the writers seem to hold Regina's point of view themselves. Regina is often delusional and loves to victim blame. That's part of her character. So when she goes off the rails like in 4.05, I don't have such an issue with her acting that way (although the uneven nature of her reactions across the episodes is a problem). The issue is that because the writers frame the story around Regina's delusion and don't treat it as such, the entire narrative falls apart. As a rational person, I look at Regina's histrionics and wonder why the hell nobody ever simply tells her that divorce is a thing. The relationship can work out without someone having to die. Instead, the only thing we are presented is that Regina's life is somehow completely ruined because Marian's not dead. It makes no sense. I understand that offering the divorce option limits the angst factor, but as far as I'm concerned this story has no real angst to begin with because they refuse to create the angst using the real story. Regina murdered Robin's wife and the mother of his child. That's where the angst and the story is, not this pretend idea that people can't go their separate ways when they realize their feelings have changed over time unless they die. The worst thing a writer can do is bore the audience. And that's what I am. I'm bored by Outlaw Queen. When there is an obvious solution to a problem then I am not going to be interested in a story. If, however, the writing chose to address the real drama wherein we examine how Robin feels about falling for his wife's murderer and tries to reconcile those feelings, I'd be more interested in where they might go with it because there is no obvious solution. I may hate the storyline, but at least it wouldn't be as boring as the endless waffling and whining over something that is very easily and rationally solved. 8 Link to comment
Mari January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 I think my greatest problem with the writing of Regina is that the writers seem to hold Regina's point of view themselves. Regina is often delusional and loves to victim blame. That's part of her character. So when she goes off the rails like in 4.05, I don't have such an issue with her acting that way (although the uneven nature of her reactions across the episodes is a problem). The issue is that because the writers frame the story around Regina's delusion and don't treat it as such, the entire narrative falls apart. As a rational person, I look at Regina's histrionics and wonder why the hell nobody ever simply tells her that divorce is a thing. The relationship can work out without someone having to die. Instead, the only thing we are presented is that Regina's life is somehow completely ruined because Marian's not dead. It makes no sense. I understand that offering the divorce option limits the angst factor, but as far as I'm concerned this story has no real angst to begin with because they refuse to create the angst using the real story. Regina murdered Robin's wife and the mother of his child. That's where the angst and the story is, not this pretend idea that people can't go their separate ways when they realize their feelings have changed over time unless they die. It's an interesting problem, because while they seem to hold Regina's point of view, they don't seem to actually care enough about her to write her well. She's the character that I think suffers the most from the hyperactive cartoonish characterization. Some of it is Parilla's performance, since she seems to take a special relish in giving Regina full-blown evil eyes, but only so much can be blamed on Parilla when her character goes from murderous to "hero" in such a short space. And you're right. Robin/Regina is boring. They've managed to make Robin completely unsympathetic, and Regina look both whiny, self-obsessed, and yet still better than Robin. I'm lost as to what they thought they were accomplishing. If bringing Marian back was supposed to "ruin Regina's life" and test her new herodom, why not actually do some Regina life ruinage? Why not have Robin horrified because he was involved with his wife's murderer, but still drawn to Regina? Why not have Emma/Henry/etc reminded who Regina used to be and shun her? Especially Emma, considering the end of the previous season? If we were supposed to feel like Regina's 4A angst was earned, why not actually give her real angst? It at least might've been more entertaining. 7 Link to comment
KingOfHearts January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 (edited) It's an interesting problem, because while they seem to hold Regina's point of view, they don't seem to actually care enough about her to write her well It's ironic, isn't it? Regina gets the most screen-time, the most attention, and the most character development, yet she's easily the most problematic character on the whole show. I'll state the obvious here when I say the writers are blinded by their own adoration of a singular character. They don't see the cracks or tears because they simply don't want to. There's no other way to explain it besides a warped worldview at play. Bringing up the infamous "40 minutes of kissing" comment, isn't that what Outlaw Queen is? Just kissing and physical touch? Why does that get so much screen time, but CS can't catch up on a near-death experience? It's a twisted double standard, that's why. Edited January 20, 2015 by KingOfHearts 7 Link to comment
Camera One January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 (edited) Regina gets the most screen-time, the most attention The fact that her screentime is high hurts her character. To give her something to do in current-day, they had her flip-flop in Season 2, and for half an episode in 4A. To give her something to do in flashbacks, they made her massacre a village. To give her screentime in 4A, they dredged the Operation Mongoose stuff for all its repetitive worth. The fact that they love both the Crying Regina and The Evil Queen persona also hurts her character development. If we now include 4A, I think Rumple is now officially suffering the same problems and for the similar reason of A&E not getting enough of the terrific acting of Carlyle providing depth on the one hand and the delicious evil of the Gold Imp. But it seems less egregious because he has less screentime. It's ironic but if they had spread out their screentime in 2B and 3B in particular, the Regina problem wouldn't have hurt enjoyment as much. There was so much more to explore in 3B with Oz, or 2B with post-Curse Storybrooke. In 3B, if they didn't have to tie Snow's scenes with Regina, for example, it would have reduced the overload, plus it could actually have used Ginny Goodwin's talent. Regina was pretty enjoyable in 3A, for example, with limited screentime. Edited January 20, 2015 by Camera One 2 Link to comment
The Cake is a Pie January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 (edited) You know, I think I could stomach the whole Woegina biggest victim who ever victimed thing if I could be sure that the writers acknowledge that Regina is delusional and unable to accept responsibility for her own actions. What has me most fearful and apprehensive with where they are going with the whole Author plot is I'm not so sure the writers don't actually believe it themselves. If they ever legitimize Regina's oh, I'm a victim of fate! belief instead of giving her a smacking of truth, that might be the breaking point where I'll be done with this show. Edited January 20, 2015 by The Cake is a Pie 4 Link to comment
Serena January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 It's an interesting problem, because while they seem to hold Regina's point of view, they don't seem to actually care enough about her to write her well. She's the character that I think suffers the most from the hyperactive cartoonish characterization. Some of it is Parilla's performance, since she seems to take a special relish in giving Regina full-blown evil eyes, but only so much can be blamed on Parilla when her character goes from murderous to "hero" in such a short space. I've been wondering about that. Like the scene in 320 when she locks up Zelena. According to interviews, the writers intended it to be a sweet moment of triumph for Regina. Lana totally played her with, as you said, evil eyes so people were like 'OMG! Is she going evil?'. I also blame the director, who could have simply told her 'okay, now do it again and tone down the crazy'. 2 Link to comment
Camera One January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 (edited) Lana totally played her with, as you said, evil eyes so people were like 'OMG! Is she going evil?'. I also blame the director, who could have simply told her 'okay, now do it again and tone down the crazy'. Yeah, they can only use that "trick" so many times. I wouldn't be surprised if A&E added it into the script as a tacky cliffhanger. They spent half of "A Tale of Two Sisters" with that ploy. And we can expect multiple crazy-eyes in 4B when they "tease" whether Regina will join the Queens of Darkness. Edited January 20, 2015 by Camera One 2 Link to comment
KAOS Agent January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 (edited) If we now include 4A, I think Rumple is now officially suffering the same problems and for the similar reason of A&E not getting enough of the terrific acting of Carlyle providing depth on the one hand and the delicious evil of the Gold Imp. But it seems less egregious because he has less screentime. The writers' commentary that Rumpel is suffering from some kind of PTSD does tend to suggest that the writers are leaning into Regina territory with Rumpel. However, since none of their explanations or rationale for Rumpel's actions were shown onscreen, I question whether some of the writers' comments are appeasement for the Rumbelle fans. Everything he did was shown as evil, evil, evil and he was punished for it. This is very much unlike Regina where her evil actions are somehow justified because she changes her mind or is suffering sooooo much. In the same story arc where Rumpel is forced out of town for enslaving a man and planning to kill him, Regina, who enslaved a man and planned to kill a woman, is getting condolences and doing shots with her victims. If Rumpel's actions were also the result of him suffering loss and trauma (and those much, much worse than Regina), why does he get punished for it while her acts are completely unacknowledged? The writing is just as crazy as Regina. Edited January 20, 2015 by KAOS Agent 6 Link to comment
Camera One January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 I think we will need to see 4B to see how A&E handles that Rumple arc, if the "good guys" work with him again, if all is forgiven in the name of a common enemy, and if they will retroactively make him all weepy that he let Bae and Belle down. I don't see it as much of a loss if 6 weeks later, he's back on his feet. I agree the one big difference between Rumple and Regina is the other characters aren't his "friends". However, they have set a bad precedent by always having the "good guys" crawling to Rumple for help. Link to comment
buildmeupbuttercup January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 It's an interesting problem, because while they seem to hold Regina's point of view, they don't seem to actually care enough about her to write her well. She's the character that I think suffers the most from the hyperactive cartoonish characterization. I'm lost as to what they thought they were accomplishing. If bringing Marian back was supposed to "ruin Regina's life" and test her new herodom, why not actually do some Regina life ruinage? Why not have Robin horrified because he was involved with his wife's murderer, but still drawn to Regina? Why not have Emma/Henry/etc reminded who Regina used to be and shun her? Especially Emma, considering the end of the previous season? If we were supposed to feel like Regina's 4A angst was earned, why not actually give her real angst? It at least might've been more entertaining. In 4A the writers actually managed to break what wasn’t broken. I actually didn’t have a problem with Outlaw Queen in 3B and was intrigued by the story they could have in 4A. We know how horrible that turned out, but the more I think about it the more it’s absolutely unfathomable to me that even in Offscreenville there was never a conversation where Robin asks his back from the dead wife how that happened and she explains how she was sprung from Regina’s Death Row. Don’t want to go with that conversation? Ask why she’s calling your new girlfriend a monster. ANY conversation that lead to Robin finding out his “bold and audacious” lover was responsible is more plausible than the manufactured frozen crap drama where Regina must save her soulmate’s wife’s life this time around at the expense of her own happy ending. Oh the irony!!!!! Also not broken? The relationship where Emma and Regina are adversaries forced to coexist for Henry or work together for the greater good, which they showed in season 3. Those scenes are actually realistic and work. Reenacting Anna/Elsa's door scene in 4x01 does not. Which leads me to... "The fans are so polarized in what they are rooting for that to appease all of them the show would be gobbledygook," Dries said. "It wouldn't make any sense." I really want to know what happened to make the writers so drastically change their tune and try to appease everyone in 4A. As recently as the end of season 3, didn’t Kalinda Vazquez tweet about SQ fans something along the lines of “thanks for watching but that’s not the direction we ever plan to go with the show”…and then she co-wrote 4x05? There was no buildup to this changing dynamic where Emma just sits there and takes the shit Regina spews out at her. Absolutely. But, I continue to be absolutely floored by how very bad A&E are at fanservice and fitting in their little side trips. The thing is, this is a show that could easily, easily do weird little fanservice/fantasy what-ifs to please the fans and themselves, without damaging the overall story--and still getting the same point across. This show does a terrible job with fanservice “winks”. The entire 4x05 debacle aside--because there is no question that was the most egregiously offensive episode--I actually thought the biggest WTF fanservice lines were in Smash the Mirror with the two bizarre Happy “shoutouts”. First, he's the dwarf Emma "despises" most then David and Snow can't believe they invited him to the welcome home party, while looking longingly at Emma in the picture. Since I knew about the crazy fandom stuff, when I heard those lines I assumed it was just a bizarre way for the writers to get in an extremely unprofessional dig at the actor that got in the Twitter war with the SQ fans, albeit what a year (?) after the fact. But for a majority of the audience those were probably huge WTF lines. Why would Emma despise any dwarfs--has she ever interacted with any of them long enough to really despise any of them? Also, why would Snow White and Prince Charming question why they invited one of the iconic 7 Dwarves to their party?? What do those “winks” accomplish? It took me right out of a scene that was actually showing Snow caring for a second about her daughter. 4A just seemed to be a complete mess of too many stories and trying to please too many fans and in the end it appears very few seemed pleased with the results. 4 Link to comment
YaddaYadda January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 I actually didn’t have a problem with Outlaw Queen in 3B and was intrigued by the story they could have in 4A. I had a problem with OQ starting in season 3 when they set up the whole fairy ordained soul mate/true love (this is also one of the many reasons I still think Blue is shady as fuck). It's like well this is it! Mostly though, I felt a lot of apathy towards them and didn't really understand why they didn't have them fall in love during the missing year, before she found out about the tattoo, why didn't they have this thing happen in an organic way instead of giving them a week in Storybrooke where he checking out her ass and she knows but oh well, then proceeds to make out with him, probably sleep with him (since I happen to think it happened before the crypt) when she finds that he is the guy from the tavern and that it's okay because the dust said he was the one. In a sense, I find this rather sad because Regina decided to open herself up to the possibility of loving someone because of fairy dust. She acted on it because she knew who he was supposed to be, not because she actually might have felt something for him which I think maybe she did. I became completely anti-OQ the moment they brought Marian in the fray and decided to say that Regina imprisoned her in her never ending quest to destroy Snow White and Marian was really just collateral damage like all those villagers. While those villagers were faceless and nameless people, Marian was not (and I will skip over the whole Graham thing as well and Owen's poor father, two other victims with faces and stories). They put a name and a face on one of Regina's victims and they gave her a story. She was someone's daughter, someone's wife, someone's mother, someone's friend who risked her own life to save someone she believed to be innocent. Her husband changed for her because he thought she deserved better than what he was, he risked his life to save hers, so as far as devotion and love go, it doesn't really get better than this. You love someone so much that you are willing to lay your life on the line for them. They showed Robin being tortured by the Dark One, almost killed because he wanted to save his wife and his unborn child that badly. That's a fairytale, the stuff heroes are made of. Sacrifice is after all the measure of true love. The writers built Marian and Robin, they were already part of it before they really showed up (much like Maleficent has been part of the show since early days). Their story is part of the fabric of Once, so why even go there with Marian? Why even bring her back to manufacture this fake angst when there was no chance in hell Robin was going back to Marian in the first place? Creating fake angst between Robin and Regina created the monster that was 405. when I think back on season 4, this episode will stand out as one of the worst on my personal scale of hate. I don't understand the writers or the process behind thinking these things up. Does it start with wouldn't it be cool if...and then veers into oops territory we took it too far? Wouldn't it be cool if Regina killed Owen's father because she wanted Owen for her own and keep them in SB and let's do that while he's trying to save his son, being heroic. Wouldn't it be cool if Regina raged at Emma for doing the right thing? Yeah, I don't know... 4 Link to comment
Dani-Ellie January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 I really want to know what happened to make the writers so drastically change their tune and try to appease everyone in 4A. That quote wasn't from the Once staff, but from an article Souris posted in the Media thread about social media connecting production teams and fans. A few of us want to tattoo it across the Once staff's forehead, though. ;) 4A just seemed to be a complete mess of too many stories and trying to please too many fans and in the end it appears very few seemed pleased with the results. I really, really enjoyed all the Frozen/Snow Queen/Emma stuff, but the rest of it? Meh. I rewatched "Smash the Mirror" last night and ended up fast-forwarding anything that wasn't A-plot-related (so, all the Outlaw Queen/Echo Chamber of Lunacy/Snow telling Regina adultery is okay nonsense) because I did not have the patience for it. It could very well have been my mood because I usually don't fast-forward, but still. (Also, look at what all the fast-forwarding had in common, heh.) Link to comment
Camera One January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 (edited) I had a problem with OQ starting in season 3 when they set up the whole fairy ordained soul mate/true love (this is also one of the many reasons I still think Blue is shady as fuck). That was just a lame attempt by A&E to tie Tinkerbelle to someone in the main cast. Tinkerbelle was the one who claimed the dust could lead Regina to her "soulmate", and I'm not confident that she even knew what she was doing. Blue was clearly against it and fired her on the spot for stealing the dust and using it for such purposes. In fact, Blue acted like Tink should have let Regina fall to her death off the balcony. This is typical make-it-up-as-you-go-along, in this case, regarding the Fairies' magic (or normally, lackthereof). It's a little pathetic that the only person they showed with a past with Tinkerbelle was Hook, though all we saw was how they met. They implied a connection with Neal and Wendy but it was elaborated even less than with Hook. I don't even remember a scene where Peter Pan interacted with her. Though of course, if they were to "trim the fat", I would have liked the excess scenes to go to the regulars (especially Charming/Snow/Emma) but it's still sad to have been in Neverland and not explore that. Edited January 21, 2015 by Camera One 3 Link to comment
Shanna Marie January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 You know, I think I could stomach the whole Woegina biggest victim who ever victimed thing if I could be sure that the writers acknowledge that Regina is delusional and unable to accept responsibility for her own actions. What has me most fearful and apprehensive with where they are going with the whole Author plot is I'm not so sure the writers don't actually believe it themselves. If they ever legitimize Regina's oh, I'm a victim of fate! belief instead of giving her a smacking of truth, that might be the breaking point where I'll be done with this show. That's where I'm terrified it's going because Regina has become perhaps the most egregious Mary Sue ever committed by allegedly professional writers. I know that's an overused term that has come to mean "moderately competent female character" or "character I don't like who's treated like she has some good qualities," but Regina isn't even the hypercompetent wish-fulfillment kind of character, like a James Bond or Phryne Fisher. She's a Mary Sue worse than something out of bad fanfic -- she's actually a terrible person, but in spite of tons of evidence of how terrible she is, she's not only tolerated but liked by the other characters. A bad fanfic Mary Sue might be extremely bitchy while the other characters (and the writer) see it as sassy, but Regina has actually caused physical harm to these people and has made multiple attempts to kill them, and yet they beg to be her friend and are even pushy about being allowed to help her when she's dealing with something difficult. She can make cutting remarks, like telling a pregnant woman (who goes into labor later that day) that she's obviously been eating too much ice cream, but no one else is allowed to criticize her. She's considered a hero and told how good she is even while she's doing bad things. The rules of the universe bend around her (she can feel deeply without her heart, can give a True Love's Kiss to a child she abused, can do the most powerful light magic ever in spite of not having been the most powerful dark magician, not having repented of her many crimes and while she's still holding a man prisoner). Her competency keeps increasing without any reason -- in season two they made a point of showing that she couldn't use magic to heal and in season four she easily heals Henry using magic, but we haven't seen her learning more about magic. The usual rules of morality don't apply to her -- she gets the "sleeping with a married man is nothing to be ashamed of" pep talk about an affair with a man whose wife is under a curse and who was one of Regina's victims, when previously Mary Margaret was slut shamed for her affair (with her own husband). And it's amazing how unconscious of all this the writers seem to be. They don't seem to notice the irony of having Regina be consoled about her affair with Robin and knowing she might not be able to be with him for good with the example of Regina's own efforts to keep Snow and David apart, or of doing an episode about Emma feeling obligated not to give up on trying to be friends with Regina when the flashbacks were of how awful Emma's life was (courtesy of Regina). They can have Elsa saying that she doesn't deserve to be thanked for undoing harm she caused in the first place while having Regina be called a hero for stopping something she started. It's like they have on huge Regina blinders that keep them from being able to treat this character objectively. It's not even doing her any favors. They give her stuff, like a pixie-dust-ordained soulmate or an instant "redemption," that skips the interesting parts of the story. All her screen time is doing or saying the same thing over and over again rather than actual good, meaty scenes. She gets no real character growth because there are no consequences to any of her actions. She wasn't always this way, though. Something changed drastically midway through season two. I wonder what caused that drastic swing away from what was successful in the first season and made them lose all objectivity about the character so that she became a black hole that warped the entire series around her and not only changed her but changed everyone else -- like Snow losing all her gumption. 6 Link to comment
KAOS Agent January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 Something changed drastically midway through season two. I wonder what caused that drastic swing away from what was successful in the first season and made them lose all objectivity about the character so that she became a black hole that warped the entire series around her and not only changed her but changed everyone else Honestly, I think Lana happened. It's why we suddenly have Regal Believer being the main parent/child relationship in the show and why we get ridiculous lines from Henry that agree with Regina's blame casting. Unfortunately, Lana seems to be the least rational about her character and seems to buy into Regina's delusions. The writers already had a hard on for the Evil Queen. Combine that with Lana's ideas and you've got a recipe for disaster. Not that I would blame everything on the actress, but she has said that she went to the writers and asked for changes and her interviews scare me sometimes with how wonky her views on her character are (Graham & Regina's relationship being flirty as one example). 4 Link to comment
Amerilla January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 From All-Seasons: Did Belle even need to find the gauntlet to know that Rumple chose power over her? No. We can look at it a million different ways, but what it comes down to is: the writers decided to use the gauntlet - something we've never seen before and will probably never see again - to introduce the QoD into the storyline through Sparkle!Rumpel, and then they had to make it important to the present- day story, and the way they chose to do that was to make something that had heretofore been completely unimportant to Belle The Single Most Important Thing Ever. It's an ass-backwards way to write a story, but that's This Show in a nutshell. They did the same thing with the dagger. Belle didn't even want the frigging thing. She was given it because she was the person who was supposed to be best equipped to handle it. Within a couple of episodes, on the flimsiest, most contrived way possible, she's whipping it out to order him around and slashes his neck with it, and a few episodes after that, it cast him out of her life "forever." But this is what happenes when you don't let your characters actually talk to one another - you have to pull out bulls**t contrivances to make the story move. Link to comment
Curio January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 (edited) But this is what happenes when you don't let your characters actually talk to one another - you have to pull out bulls**t contrivances to make the story move. Yep. It's like the writers are allergic to using their own material to create drama, so they just make up new things all the time to fit whatever shiny new plot/character they're obsessed with at the moment. Hook's voice message, the irony behind Regina whining about Emma ruining her budding romance when she did the exact same thing to Emma/Graham, and Rumple killing Zelena and wiping the tape are all things that should have created drama, but the writers just throw them out like a leftover pizza box. With that gauntlet example, why couldn't the flashback in the midseason finale show Rumple tricking the Queens of Darkness with a fake dagger, creating a parallel to him tricking Belle with the fake proposal dagger? The Queens of Evil could have kidnapped Belle some time after Belle first kissed Rumple and his powers started to fade, so they would have realized that Belle is Rumple's biggest weakness and his verified "True Love." Using this as leverage, they would think kidnapping her would be enough for Rumple to hand over the Dark One dagger to save Belle - his supposed "True Love." Rumple would then give them a fake dagger, Belle would get returned to him, and then he'd have a Gotcha! moment when the Queens of Darkness realize they've been tricked with a fake dagger. Rumple could then poof Belle and him away from the scene and Belle would still realize she means a lot to him if he was willing to pull a big ruse just to rescue her. After Belle makes a comment about how she thought for a second that he might have actually given up his real dagger for her, he could respond, "Are you insane? I would never willingly give up my dagger to anyone. I could never trust someone enough with that kind of power over me." The irony with that phrase would be twofold: 1) Rumple and the audience know he's actually telling the honest-to-god honest truth right there, and 2) Belle would think back to that line when Rumple proposes to her and Belle would think she truly broke through to him because he finally willingly gave up his dagger, even though in the flashback he said he'd never do that. So when Belle realizes the dagger is a fake when Emma and Snow come running to her after Anna's reveal (or when she discovers Emma's cell phone and listens to the message!), the pain would be doubly worse since she should have known from the beginning that she was just convincing herself of something that wasn't true. It would have also made Belle's mirror-taunting make a little more continuity-sense, since mirror-Belle said, "Deep down, you know it's not the real dagger." Having that flashback would have added more depth to that confession. But, you know, I guess just throwing in a random gauntlet that means absolutely nothing to the audience or the characters at the last second and forcing that item to have some kind of powerful meaning behind it works too... Edited January 26, 2015 by Curio 5 Link to comment
Souris January 24, 2015 Author Share January 24, 2015 (edited) SQers' best friend Scott Nimerfro posted a pic on Twitter of him wearing that same SQ sweater that JMo and Lana wore for that one photo and then probably never touched again. It floors me that it's A-OK for a writer to show such favoritism for a crackship. If a writer showed such favoritism for CS or OQ, they'd be EXCORIATED. Edited January 24, 2015 by Souris Link to comment
Camera One January 24, 2015 Share January 24, 2015 The writers show favoritism for those other two just by writing the scripts that they do. Maybe that's why they feel the need to "prove" their love for the crackship. It is so disturbing that Nimerfro is permitted to play to one specific fanbase like that. Could they all model "Worldbuilding and Keeping Track of the Timeline Is Important" T-shirts instead? Or someone needs to design a shirt with a Swan wearing Charms caught in a Snowstorm, or would that be too subtle for them? 4 Link to comment
Souris January 24, 2015 Author Share January 24, 2015 Can you imagine the SQ Twitter hate-storm that would explode if, say, Jane Espenson posted a selfie wearing an I Heart OQ shirt? Link to comment
Serena January 24, 2015 Share January 24, 2015 Ah! I'm pretty sure the SQ fans bought that and sent it to him. It's actually pretty sad, because it's clear they're doing all this (even spending money) to somehow "convince" the writers to write SQ, but it's never gonna happen. 2 Link to comment
FurryFury January 24, 2015 Share January 24, 2015 (edited) I wonder if the bones they throw SQ-ers won't get bigger, though. Like Emma and Regina being a "thing" in a one-episode "AU", for example. Hell, I won't even be surprised if they make Regina bi if OQ won't pan out, for some reason. I'm really appalled at how the writers are giving in to what basically amounts to fan-bullying. I know that fans campaigning for their non-canon ships is a common thing, but it really feels like SQ fans are much more rude (to the actors, to the writers, to the other fans) that it's usual. Edited January 24, 2015 by FurryFury 2 Link to comment
RadioGirl27 January 24, 2015 Share January 24, 2015 I wonder if the bones they throw SQ-ers won't get bigger, though. Like Emma and Regina being a "thing" in a one-episode "AU", for example. Hell, I won't even be surprised if they make Regina bi if OQ won't pan out, for some reason. I don't think they would go that far (at least I hope so), but I'm pretty sure we are going to see a lot more queer-baiting this half season, like a hug between Emma and Regina, some kind of domestic scene between Emma, Regina and Henry and, of course, more Emma begging for Regina's friendship. I'm really appalled at how the writers are giving in to what basically amounts to fan-bullying. I know that fans campaigning for their non-canon ships is a common thing, but it really feels like SQ fans are much more rude (to the actors, to the writers, to the other fans) that it's usual. I have given my opinion about this many times. The message the writers are sending is problematic. They are validating the bullies, telling them to keep with the abuse and they would get what they want. I'm a teacher, I work with kids and this message is against everything we teach them. 5 Link to comment
Curio January 24, 2015 Share January 24, 2015 Ah! I'm pretty sure the SQ fans bought that and sent it to him. It's actually pretty sad, because it's clear they're doing all this (even spending money) to somehow "convince" the writers to write SQ, but it's never gonna happen. And yet, 4.05 exists... I was going to post this when Jane Espenson first tweeted it back in December, but never got around to it. She mentions how she used to read the TWOP recaps back in the day as a way of taking into consideration intelligent criticism. If someone here has a Twitter account, I think one of us should tweet back at her and remind her TWOP is still alive and well in these forums, and the Once writers might actually benefit from reading some (sometimes harsh) criticism outside of the crazy 140 characters Twitter limits people to. 6 Link to comment
Guest January 24, 2015 Share January 24, 2015 I was binge watching Outlander (and OMG I love that show, yay! Free Preview weekend) and I realized why I'm disappointed about the writing for this show. I have certain expectations for shows that base themselves off works of others. I expect depth. I expect the writers to immerse themselves in that work and then explore it. I don't really care if they find a different perspective or stay true to the original; but I expect them to play with the little details and get creative or breath new life into what came before. I want a Game of Thrones or Walking Dead or Outlander. OUAT has hundreds of years of stories to find inspiration from. But the stories they tell feel like they vaguely remember the Disney version of the cartoon from when they were a kid but don't bother to refresh their memory or read the original tale for inspiration or world building when they start a new story arc. I was incredibly disappointed that they didn't pull anything from the Oz books during the Wicked arc. It also explains why I worry so much that they are pulling out three villains at once. There aren't that many well known villains left and they've demonstrated that they don't have the interest in fairy tales to discover a lesser known villain. Based on what I've seen so far I can't imagine that they have the wherewithal to tell a story where the audience can't fill in the blanks from the movies they saw as kids. Link to comment
Camera One January 24, 2015 Share January 24, 2015 (edited) OUAT has hundreds of years of stories to find inspiration from. It is such a waste, and it's too bad that not even one of the writers seem to be gung-ho on devouring folk stories, traditional fairy tales and tales from other cultures for inspiration, if A&E wouldn't. I mean, even some of the Disney ones are hardly explored... you could tell A&E couldn't care less about Cinderella, and until now, even Sleeping Beauty's Maleficient was essentially a throw-away. I actually find it disrespectful that Sleeping Beauty, uh, I mean the VILLAIN of Sleeping Beauty has to share half a frickin season with Ursula and Cruella. But the stories they tell feel like they vaguely remember the Disney version of the cartoon from when they were a kid but don't bother to refresh their memory or read the original tale for inspiration or world building when they start a new story arc. The only time I can give them kudos is it *looks* like they did read the original "The Snow Queen" story for some inspiration for 4A, with the Mirror, the effects of the glass shards and the name Gerda. I suppose that was all they used, but it wasn't the easiest story to adapt, though it would have been nice if they had included more little tidbits, like the garden of the old woman where Gerda forgot about Kay, or ice pieces spelling out Eternity. I thought they were going to have Snow White be the Robber Girl when Anna went to Misthaven. Edited January 25, 2015 by Camera One 1 Link to comment
Faemonic January 25, 2015 Share January 25, 2015 The only time I can give them kudos is it *looks* like they did read the original "The Snow Queen" story for some inspiration for 4A, with the Mirror, the effects of the glass shards and the name Gerda. I suppose that was all they used, but it wasn't the easiest story to adopt, though it would have been nice if they had included more little tidbits, like the garden of the old woman where Gerda forgot about Kay, or ice pieces spelling out Eternity. I thought they were going to have Snow White be the Robber Girl when Anna went to Misthaven. I very much appreciated the callbacks to the original "The Snow Queen" too because it's my favorite fairy tale. I thought they pulled it off well enough, melding that and Frozen and the original OUAT cast stories. (For the most part...Outlaw Queen...) But it's still obviously just a new toy they were having fun with. Oz, I thought that the writers would do so much more with because there had been flying monkeys in Henry's Storybook since Season 1. But the only real callback to the original thing was the shoes being silver, not ruby. I guess it was clever for the Great Ozian Witches of Wisdom, Courage, and Love to swap with the Scarecrow, Lion, and Tin Man...except that they only accompanied Dorothy for like 5 minutes before Zelena showed herself to be the most insecure thing to breathe air. Mostly they were just sitting down at the table. Adventure!!! I also adored J.M. Barrie's novel Peter and Wendy (even with the racist and classist parts) so I kind of liked Neverland but then I look back on it and was kind of disappointed that there wasn't more done with the source material, even though I definitely appreciated the thematic return to Adult Orphans and Emma being the main character. Also Puppy Killian Jones. And maybe mermaids. Seriously, though, the Darlings were just sort of there and I don't know what wasn't going on between Wendy and Tinkerbell. How can the first season have had so much more depth and cohesion when only one episode each was dedicated to the new toys? (Jiminy Cricket's dark past, Red Riding Hood's dark past, how Dreamy became Grumpy...) 1 Link to comment
YaddaYadda January 25, 2015 Share January 25, 2015 How can the first season have had so much more depth and cohesion when only one episode each was dedicated to the new toys? (Jiminy Cricket's dark past, Red Riding Hood's dark past, how Dreamy became Grumpy...) I think the answer to that is a very simple one. No magic in Season 1. It existed only in the context of the Enchanted Forest flashbacks that we were getting, but in Storybrooke, people were equal. When Emma took the saw to Regina's apple tree, if Regina had magic, she would have either blasted her back or choked her to death, but she could not, she just stood around yelling at her. There was no big bad magical foe showing up in town, there wasn't that sense of urgency that the problem of said foe has to be solved before they let loose and start murdering people left and right, so it left time for character development and relationship development. There was an actual story being told. But they brought magic to Storybrooke and suddenly, every villain and magical asshole can find a contrived way to come to town and wreck havoc on the poor townsfolk and everything is a matter of life and death and they have to fix it. And now instead of having one freak show for 4B, it's the whole circus that's coming to town. Much as I wanted Emma to STFU about NYC in 3B, she absolutely had the right idea. Who wants to live in a town where you have magical baddies who can't even be held by a cage because they can magic themselves out of there? Magic is what has taken away from the show imo. They bring in villains, focus on them and forget about their core characters (unless they're Regina and Rumple since they know every villain on God's green earth). The thing is, they could easily do a blend of Season 1 and whatever season where the characters are interacting, having a life and the timeline sort of makes sense. I can't even think about the type of show we will be having with 4 villains running about town for 11 episodes. I'm sure it will be a mess. 6 Link to comment
KingOfHearts January 25, 2015 Share January 25, 2015 I think the answer to that is a very simple one. No magic in Season 1. I was going to write the same thing. What made the flashbacks unique in S1 was that it was a setting the audience wanted to go to or achieve. It was a place where all the characters they loved lived, and for that reason it was special. It gave desire for the curse to be broken to see the contrast between the Enchanted Forest and their miserable lives in Storybrooke. Now that there's magic, there's no difference between the two worlds besides electronic conveniences, making many of the flashbacks redundant to the present. 3 Link to comment
daxx January 25, 2015 Share January 25, 2015 Maybe Henry had the right idea to blow up the wishing well. Although there was no indication that would actually get rid of magic. 1 Link to comment
Curio January 25, 2015 Share January 25, 2015 (edited) I stumbled upon Kalinda Vazquez's Twitter page today, and noticed she posted something about catching up on the Breaking Bad podcasts. I know I've mentioned Breaking Bad and Vince Gilligan's awesome podcasts a couple of times on these boards as an example of good TV writing, so I just thought it was kind of funny that one of the Once writers is just discovering those podcasts now. I have to wonder if Kalinda questions why Adam & Eddy don't have the same amount of knowledge about their own show and the writing process to do a similar podcast... I also thought her response to a (very valid) question about why Belle was absent for most of 4A to be quite telling: "barely" in 4A? She had two flashbacks that's more than most, don't you think? First off... holy crap. This just made me realize Belle had the same amount of flashbacks as Emma did in 4A (not including the quick scene of Emma and Ingrid in the ice cream shop). In a season that was supposedly all about Emma. I need to wrap my head around that for a second. But I think this sums up the Once writing room perfectly. They have a very warped perspective about how the audience is actually perceiving their show. In their minds, giving Belle two flashback episodes justifies putting her to sleep for several episodes and making her completely clueless about Rumple the entire season. It's like they have a checklist of items like: "Did we give Belle two flashbacks? Check. Did we have a Regina and Emma friendship episode? Check." where they mark things off and consider that emotional pay off, even if those things don't enhance the plot at all. I'm not even a huge fan of Belle, but that's a horrible way to go about giving a character importance in a season arc. Hook technically didn't have any flashbacks in 4A, but his character was still much more prominent and important to the overall plot; randomly giving a character pointless flashbacks isn't going to automatically mean their character is more important. This makes me really nervous for 4B. Edited January 25, 2015 by Curio 7 Link to comment
RadioGirl27 January 25, 2015 Share January 25, 2015 That answers shows that the problem is the writing team as a whole and not only Adam and Eddy. It reminds me to that answers about the 40 minutes make up session for Emma and Hook. They just don't get it. They don't see that a pointless flashback or a kiss doesn't equal character development and pay off. 2 Link to comment
Camera One January 25, 2015 Share January 25, 2015 Wow, Curio... that quote just floored me. Clearly, they see all screentime as equal in quality, and she cannot see the disconnect whereby very little of Belle's supposed rich flashback time actually developed her making the decision to banish Rumple from town. Your example of Hook was a good one. Even though he had no flashback and didn't have huge screentime, when he was onscreen, he was emotionally torn and his character was shown to be affected by the plot, which is actually more significant screentime than other main cast members like Charming or Belle got despite both of them getting flashbacks. 1 Link to comment
Souris January 25, 2015 Author Share January 25, 2015 Once is just a terribly, terribly written show. The ideas are there in their formative stages, but the execution sucks giant monkey balls. 4 Link to comment
Shanna Marie January 25, 2015 Share January 25, 2015 I have certain expectations for shows that base themselves off works of others. I expect depth. I expect the writers to immerse themselves in that work and then explore it. I don't really care if they find a different perspective or stay true to the original; but I expect them to play with the little details and get creative or breath new life into what came before. Heck, they don't even mine, develop and explore their own mythology that they created. They have a town full of storybook characters living in our world, with dual identities so that now they're aware of their real selves while also having memories of living in our world where they're considered storybook characters, and yet there's no real difference between the characters we know have cursed identities, the characters brought over in the second curse who don't seem to have cursed identities, and the characters who've never been cursed. We haven't even been able to decide if the people affected by curse 2 but not curse 1 have any kind of cursed identity that never took because they never lost their real identities or a Storybrooke memory download or if they were just transported. I think I could write a season's worth of stories just playing with that storybook vs. Storybrooke dichotomy, even without guest villains. They have parents whose daughter is the same age as they are and who grew up in an entirely different world, and they've manufactured other conflicts instead of dealing with the basic situation. It's not just the arrival of magic that's the problem. It's magic with no rules. Magic supposedly comes at a price, but apparently that only applies to people signing contracts with Rumple because everyone seems to be able to throw around the jazz hands with impunity. If they'd just established some rules and limitations for how magic works, it would have been a lot more interesting -- like if Rumple had to be physically connected to the dagger to work magic, or if Regina had to refresh by inhaling the book -- and now it's running out of ink, or if there was some concern that Emma's magic would get darker the more she used it. Putting limits and costs on the magic instead of everyone with magic just having unlimited superpowers would make things a lot more interesting because then magic has to become a serious decision instead of something just flung around. 7 Link to comment
YaddaYadda January 25, 2015 Share January 25, 2015 It's not just the arrival of magic that's the problem. It's magic with no rules. Magic supposedly comes at a price, but apparently that only applies to people signing contracts with Rumple because everyone seems to be able to throw around the jazz hands with impunity. I sort of disagree with this. Rumple has paid the ultimate price, he lost his son not to another realm this time, but to death. After everything he has done, all his carefully laid plans, his son died, died, died and is never coming back (or should never be coming back unless they decide to mess around with timelines or whatever). The thing is and per 4A's Rumple arc, he has learned absolutely nothing about the price of magic. His wife banished him, yes, because he did not choose her and he lied to her, but she banished him nonetheless, he lost her (don't know for how long) ultimately because of magic. Cora, Zelena, Pan and even Ingrid and Rumple (at one point), their ultimate price for the things they have done was their lives. It might be simplistic, but these people (except for Rumple) no longer exist in the world. Regina's price should ultimately be that no, she's not allowed to have her heart's desire which is that bore Robin. They had her lose Henry, but that price was paid by everyone who loved Henry and loved Emma, that was not Regina's price alone (I will never, ever get over that brand of fuckery and what ensued). These villains are all aware that magic comes with a price. (We saw the price that Gerda paid, that was Elsa's magic [(that was sadly Elsa's price to pay as well, but the sins of the mother revisited upon the daughter)]). They know there is a price to pay, either they don't take it seriously or they think that whatever it is, they will overcome because every single villain we have encountered is an arrogant little shit who thinks they will come out on top. It's their arrogance that make it seem like they have no paid some sort of price because they have, but they just don't get it. Rumple loses his son, vows to be a better person, falls off the wagon in a very spectacular way to the extent where he is now ready to let his grandson's mother die in the ice wall and later put her in the hat because she is that powerful and he is also okay with crushing a man's heart because the end for him justifies the means (though I don't have as big a problem with this part because Hook and Rumple are enemies, period, just like I wouldn't have a problem with Hook going after Rumple. They should not be able to co-exist like that, too much history, too much hatred). But to say they don't pay the price of their magic, I sort of disagree with that. There have been consequences to the things they have done, they're just too stupid and have no self-awareness and everything is always everyone else's fault and never theirs. Mommy left me, daddy was an ass, therefore this is me. Link to comment
Camera One January 25, 2015 Share January 25, 2015 (edited) Even if Rumple and those villains (eventually... after eons in some cases) paid a high price, the price is still completely disproportional to the price that the "good guys" pay for a fraction of a fraction of the magic they used. When people go to Rumple or another powerful sage for magic, "Magic always has a price" is always trotted out for that ONE piece of magic the "good guy" desires. Whereas the villains can wave their hands ten times an episode, and there isn't a price for each of those actions. It comes back to the double standard the writers are always operating on. Edited January 25, 2015 by Camera One 5 Link to comment
FabulousTater January 25, 2015 Share January 25, 2015 (edited) But to say they don't pay the price of their magic, I sort of disagree with that. There have been consequences to the things they have done, they're just too stupid and have no self-awareness and everything is always everyone else's fault and never theirs. Mommy left me, daddy was an ass, therefore this is me. I think there's some confusion happening between actions having consequences (which are suffered most by those that aren't evil or named "Rumple" and "Regina") and a magic system having limits and rules that are followed as part of the world-building, which this show has absolutely none of because magic has no price (unless you're one of the good guys -- I mean, Regina should have a hole in her heart that can never be filled for casting the first curse, but she doesn't. She got her prize, Henry. Snowing on the other hand have to share a freakin' heart! ). On this show "magic" has no limits (until the writers says there is for the good guys). There's no cost to using magic until the plot says so as a contrivance and, of course, if it's Rumple or Regina the long term costs for magic use are practically non-existent (especially if your name is Regina). There are no rules in place, for example, that say that those weilding magic then have to sleep for at least 8 hours a day or else they can't use magic. But having hard and fast magic rules (or the lack thereof) isn't the same as actions having consequences. One's actions should have consequences (and they do in the real world and in well written shows). There should be long term effects impacting people for their actions, but on this show it's rare that Rumple and Regina actually pay those long term consequences, especially in any way that is proportionate with the suffering that they've caused. Those that do suffer the most consequences are actually the victims of Rumple, Regina, and the villain(s) of the week, and yet all the crying and whining is done by the villains and the writers construct all the scenes sympathizing with the villains. Like, let that sink in -- the people who suffer the most (and permanent ) consequences on this show, who never get justice for what's been done to them, and who aren't even allowed to bad mouth the villains are the victims. Whose tears and pity does the writing spend endless screen time on? The monsters doing the killing and torturing and abusing of everyone else! Rumple lost his son because of consequences of his actions not because of magic. Rumple willfully let him go. Rumple's a coward and he's addicted to something that keeps from totally feeling inadequate -- power. Power is just Rumple's viagra and on this show that power is in the form of "magic", but ultimately his problem is himself not magic. He suffers consequences of his actions not the consequences of "magic". Ya, he is cursed by the dagger but we saw in season 1(!) that he has a way to get out from that curse but he refuses because he's a freakin coward who can't let go of power viagra! Rumple isn't paying the price of magic, he's paying the price of being a chicken shit evil bastard. And Douchefire died because of his own stupidity. He knowingly walked into a trap and out loud said "fuck the consequences, I do what I want!" and he paid for his stupid (and good riddance to the scum bucket!). But again, it's a situation where his "magical" death could've just as easily been him knowingly setting off a bomb, despite knowing that it's a bomb, and that got him killed because he was a selfish, scum sucking moron. The consequences of their own actions is not the same as magic actually having a price. "Magic has a price" except it doesn't -- magic itself has no price on this show, no cohesive rules, no uniform limitations (or even basic laws of magic physics) that apply to all. Magic on this show is a tool; it's like a hammer, though it's a hammer that costs little effort to wield (if you're a bad guy) and has seemingly no limits on it's power or whether it's actually good, bad, pink or purple (i.e., if you're Regina) because again this show has no actual magic system world rules that it sticks with. Really, instead of killing someone with a hammer, the villains use "magic". Instead of building a chemical bomb to wipeout the town, Regina uses a "magic" in the form of a magical doomsday diamond. Instead of using chloroform to knockout Belle, Rumple uses "magic". But they suffer no consequences for using the hammer itself because wielding the hammer has no price; magic has no price because this show has no magic rules of world-building and when it does decide to suddenly apply magical "rules" it only applies to the good guys and that's not a rule, that's a plot contrivance. ETA: I think the overarching problem with this show is that there's basically no karmic justice. Regina should've been executed several times over but for inexplicable reasons she's coddled by her victims and they spend their time bending over backwards to appease her despite her constant abuse of them. Rumple should've not just been banished, but locked up in another magical prison, but he's not because the writers need him to be roaming around free because reasons. Like Souris said a few posts above, the writing for this show is just terrible. On this show the good guys are like the abuse victims that keep going back to their abusers for reasons and the writers not only hail that as good and just, they take it even further and write it as bad and evil when the good guys dare to confront or even remind these horrible bastards of what they have done to them! Remember how frowned upon it was for Marian to deservedly call Regina a monster. There were episodes dedicated to how much that hurt Regina. I mean, Regina imprisoned and tortured (and executed) Marian, but Marian owes Regina the apology for calling her a monster. What a pile of garbage... Edited January 26, 2015 by FabulousTater 6 Link to comment
FormerMod-a1 January 26, 2015 Share January 26, 2015 This is a reminder to keep to the topic. We spent some time defining how this topic differentiates from the others. Adding a "... the writers chose..." or "I like/don't like they wrote..." onto a post that could otherwise fit elsewhere doesn't cut it. If the only thing about the writers, writing, their choices or structure is a tacked on sentence then that post should go elsewhere - Magic, Relationships, All Seasons, etc. Many posts here are fine, but we are seeing more of this kind of thing slipping in. 1 Link to comment
Shanna Marie January 26, 2015 Share January 26, 2015 I think there's some confusion happening between actions having consequences (which are suffered most by those that aren't evil or named "Rumple" and "Regina") and a magic system having limits and rules that are followed as part of the world-building, which this show has absolutely none of because magic has no price Yes, that's what I meant. Rumple is reaping the consequences of bad choices, and magic was just how he made bad choices, but he was making bad choices even when he didn't have magic, so he likely would have had some other kind of consequences even without magic. But what I meant was that magic isn't treated like any other resource -- there are no limits to it, no definitions, and there's no source. It would be like everyone having unlimited funds without any kind of economic system in place to explain it (they do come close to this on the show, but at least there have been nods to lack of funds, like David's parents having to sell a twin or Jefferson's poverty). Or people being able to run and fight all day without needing to rest or eat. Or guns that don't have to be reloaded or aimed. Is this show these writers' first time to have to build a world from scratch rather than working in someone else's world? Because unlimited magic is a big rookie mistake in fantasy. It seems like it makes it easier to not set up any rules from the start because that then might restrict your future storytelling choices, but in practice that actually makes things more difficult. If the good guys can do anything with their magic, with no limits -- teleport, turn things or people into other things, conjure things out of thin air, throw fireballs, blast people around, etc. -- and they never run out of power, then it gets really difficult to create a villain who will challenge the good guys for more than five minutes but who isn't so overpowered that it would look silly if the bad guy couldn't defeat the heroes in five minutes. It's because of this lack of definition that we get arcs that consist of the heroes being helpless against the villain until the last second when some deus ex machina saves the day. When they come up with a magical weakness, it's one that makes no sense whatsoever, like Zelena's necklace. Who in their right mind would take their inherent power and put it in a necklace so that they're left utterly without power if they ever lost the necklace? I halfway wonder if they might have just come up with that out of thin air toward the end of the arc when they realized they'd written themselves into a corner and didn't have a way to beat Zelena -- hey, maybe that necklace that the costume designers put her in holds all her power! Putting limits on magic actually makes it a lot easier to get an interesting story because it creates times when your good guys might lose and times when your villains might lose, and it forces both sides to be strategic. In something I wrote, magic was an environmental resource that some people were able to draw upon. The hero was more powerful because he was better at drawing upon magic from the environment, so when the bad guy challenged him to a showdown, the hero set the location at a place with lower levels of magic so he'd have an edge. The bad guy was less scientific about it and didn't do the research, so he didn't realize he was at a disadvantage. Having rules also gives you an excuse to not use magic all the time to solve every problem. So, say Regina's magic book that she huffed to get her powers in the first place and get them back after the curse was actually the source of her power, and she had to keep renewing her power from the book each time she needed to top off her power, but each time she did so one of the pages went blank. Now she doesn't have that many pages left, so she has to be careful about how she uses magic, and she's realizing that the time may come when she isn't able to protect Henry because of some fireball she threw at Snow in the past since she used to use magic unwisely. To me, that's a lot more interesting than unlimited jazz hands of power. 2 Link to comment
Curio January 27, 2015 Share January 27, 2015 Is this show these writers' first time to have to build a world from scratch rather than working in someone else's world? Because unlimited magic is a big rookie mistake in fantasy. If I'm not mistaken, this is Adam & Eddy's first time being show runners, so the lack of world building and rules setting really shows. They were brought on as regular team writers for Lost when that show's universe and rules were already fairly well established, so I don't know how much practice they have in building a universe from scratch. I think they originally had a cool concept for a show that involved fairy tale characters coming over to our world without magic, and they probably wanted a regular person who grew up without magic to be the savior. But that's about it. I doubt they really fleshed out the magical rules and whatnot before the show began, because otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. It's okay to make the rules up as you go along if you didn't establish them right away, but it seems like a lost cause now that it's Season 4 and there still aren't any concrete rules. When they come up with a magical weakness, it's one that makes no sense whatsoever, like Zelena's necklace. Who in their right mind would take their inherent power and put it in a necklace so that they're left utterly without power if they ever lost the necklace? I halfway wonder if they might have just come up with that out of thin air toward the end of the arc when they realized they'd written themselves into a corner and didn't have a way to beat Zelena -- hey, maybe that necklace that the costume designers put her in holds all her power! I take it you never saw Sam Raimi's Oz the Great and Powerful. In that movie, (and I'm not suggesting you should watch it, it's pretty terrible), Rachel Weisz's character is an evil witch and her character is ultimately defeated because her green gem necklace she always wears that stores all her powers is destroyed. So the Once writers get docked even more points for having no creativity and stealing a plot from a crappy remake movie starring James Franco. If the writers were going to take ideas from another source material, why not steal from the original Baum books and not the godawful Raimi movie disaster? 3 Link to comment
Guest January 27, 2015 Share January 27, 2015 If the writers were going to take ideas from another source material, why not steal from the original Baum books and not the godawful Raimi movie disaster? And we circle back to the beginning. I really think this is because they rely on the audience already being familiar with the source material. They could have done something very interesting with Frankenstein's land, Tin Man, ChopFyt, Tin Soldier and Nimmie Aimee; but they stuck with the more well-known movies because they just aren't that interested in doing the work of involved with telling a lesser known tale. They don't do payoff. But really, they are even worse at setting up the stories in the first place. This is why I'm sure we'll get the Jolie version of Malificent this time around. Link to comment
Mari January 27, 2015 Share January 27, 2015 (edited) I really think this is because they rely on the audience already being familiar with the source material. They could have done something very interesting with Frankenstein's land, Tin Man, ChopFyt, Tin Soldier and Nimmie Aimee; but they stuck with the more well-known movies because they just aren't that interested in doing the work of involved with telling a lesser known tale. So, basically, they seem to be too lazy to use SparkNotes or Wikipedia, and figure their audience is, too? No wonder I'm continually disappointed. Edited January 27, 2015 by Mari 2 Link to comment
Camera One January 27, 2015 Share January 27, 2015 (edited) This is why I'm sure we'll get the Jolie version of Malificent this time around. Adam has been crazy defensive anytime anyone on Twitter suggests they are doing Maleficient because of the Angelina Jolie version, with reminders they have had Maleficient on the show before. So I'm curious how much they'll "borrow" from that film, after stating several times this will be THEIR take on Maleficient. Edited January 27, 2015 by Camera One 1 Link to comment
Shanna Marie January 27, 2015 Share January 27, 2015 I take it you never saw Sam Raimi's Oz the Great and Powerful. In that movie, (and I'm not suggesting you should watch it, it's pretty terrible), Rachel Weisz's character is an evil witch and her character is ultimately defeated because her green gem necklace she always wears that stores all her powers is destroyed. Wow, so bad copying instead of bad creativity, but did this person take her inherent power and put it in a necklace, or was the necklace the source of her power? Actually, I could see trading power amplification for offloading your power as a villain kind of move -- the kind of thing the crone in a fairy tale might tempt both the villain and hero with. You can double your power, but that means putting all your power into this gem, so you'll be powerless if you ever lose it. The hero would be like, "Um, yeah, no thanks. The power that's part of me is enough for me," while the villain would be more likely to hear only the part about double power and figure that with double power, they'd be invincible enough to never lose the gem (and of course that's what allows the villain's downfall). That's a decision I could see Zelena making. The problem is that it was something the supposed good witches came up with and did to her without giving her a choice. That really doesn't sound like something a group of good magic users would do. What might have worked better with Zelena would be if her necklace had amplified her power, so once they removed it she still had power but was on a more even footing with the good guys, but then I guess they had the problem of what to do with her after they beat her, since there's that problem of not being able to keep her in jail that they also had with Regina. That's one of the issues with writing these overpowered villains. The only option is to kill them because they've already established that they can't really do anything else about them. Just about every decent fantasy I can think of has put some limitations on the use of magic. In the Harry Potter world, they had to use wands and actual spells, so they needed to know a particular spell that would work in a given situation. There are others where magic is draining, so the magic user can only do so much at once and then has to rest and recharge. There are limited skills -- each magic user can do only one or two kinds of things, like fire magic or water magic. There's magic that requires ritual or ingredients. Etc. And then there's the problem that once you establish that a character can do something, you have to wonder why the character doesn't always do that. Regina and Rumple can poof from place to place at apparently no cost to them, so why do they bother with cars or walking? Now that they've shown that Regina can heal magically, the stakes get a lot lower as long as she's a good guy because she can apparently heal wounds with a handwave. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts