Rumsy4 December 21, 2014 Author Share December 21, 2014 They think they're presenting a layered portrayal, and are surprised when people fail to connect the dots. They just don't spend enough time in characterizations and too much time in moving the plot forward. Even the worst villains have a motivation that is justifiable in their minds--but the writers need to spell in out on-screen, not in interviews and via twitter. Half the time, I think A&E are merely dissembling. 1 Link to comment
KAOS Agent December 22, 2014 Share December 22, 2014 (edited) I think they were trying to portray Rumpel's conflict with layers, but like with Regina, they just don't get when they take a character's actions too far or act in ways that don't fit into their twisted reasoning/excuses for why a character is behaving badly. So Regina murders an entire village and terrorizes an entire realm, but it's all explained by her abusive childhood and her need for love or something. Rumpel tortures Hook and revels in his pain, but it's all because he was suffering PTSD, so it's not villainous. They've crossed beyond a moral event horizon with many of these characters and don't seem to understand that they've done it. What makes it particularly hard to reconcile is that these writers do have other villains who understand they've crossed the line and have them face the consequences of it. It leaves me confused about how this show wants to portray morality. Regina and Rumpel are okay because they're just misunderstood in a different way than Ingrid or Zelena were misunderstood? It's just wrong and has me as a viewer unsure about what the message is in terms of good and evil or heroes and villains. Edited December 22, 2014 by KAOS Agent 3 Link to comment
KingOfHearts December 22, 2014 Share December 22, 2014 (edited) Regina and Rumpel are okay because they're just misunderstood in a different way than Ingrid or Zelena were misunderstood? See, this is maddening. Ingrid was on the right redemptive path, and Zelena had potential to after she lost... and they're both dead. But Regina and Rumple, two of the most wicked people in the universe, are walking around arm in arm with the heroes.* The blind notion to just kill every person who poses a threat has some moral implications. The only reason Golden Queen is still alive is because they're main cast members with contracts. From a story point of view, it doesn't make a lick of sense. * I know Rumple isn't now, but he'll be back soon. We all know it. Edited December 22, 2014 by KingOfHearts 1 Link to comment
Shanna Marie December 22, 2014 Share December 22, 2014 There definitely seem to be different moral standards applied depending on whether someone's in the regular cast and whether their victims are in the regular cast, and then there's an entirely different standard for Regina. So Snow gets a black spot on her heart and has to grovel for forgiveness to Regina and isn't allowed to forget it when she kills Cora to save Rumple's life and to keep Cora from becoming the Dark One who'll likely start a reign of terror (and who has murdered Snow's mother and her nurse). But it's a moment of triumph that teaches Snow a valuable lesson when she kills Medusa to save Charming, even though she was the one who went into Medusa's lair to try to make Medusa into a weapon for killing Regina. Ingrid has to die to undo the Shattered Sight spell when she realizes the error of her ways, and while they're sad, they don't try to stop her. But when Regina's failsafe is about to destroy the whole town, they decide they can't let her sacrifice herself. Would Hook have been considered a villain if Rumple had been just an arc villain instead of in the title credits? If he'd come to town, looking for the man who killed his love and maimed him, would they have tried to stop him and done everything to save his enemy? It's interesting to compare the various villains' deeds, their motives, and their fates: Regina Evil scheme: Plan A: to destroy Snow White's happiness; Plan B: to destroy the whole town Motive: Ten-year-old Snow told Cora about Regina's secret boyfriend, and Cora killed him, and then no one else in the kingdom saw Snow as the villain she was; she didn't want to share her son with his birth mother and grandparents Evil deeds: engineered the murder of her husband (Snow's father), tried multiple times to get Snow killed, ripped out people's hearts so she could use them as her puppets or sex slaves, ripped out hearts to kill people, sent children to their deaths, slaughtered villages when they didn't turn against Snow, executed enough peasants that she didn't remember them all, murdered her own father to cast the Dark Curse, sent her knights to murder a newborn baby, cursed the entire kingdom and took away their identities so they would suffer, kept Belle locked up for 28 years and let Rumple think her father had killed her, emotionally abused her adopted son just to mess with his birth mother, framed Snow for murder, arranged Kathryn's murder, destroyed all the magic beans, got out the failsafe with the plan to kill everyone in town. Consequences: Still has her son, her victims are trying to be friends with her and saved her from the wraith when Rumple wanted revenge. Hasn't had to apologize. Did save the town by stopping her own failsafe, but everyone rallied around her so she didn't have to die. Lost her boyfriend when she was stopped from executing his wife in the past. Rumple Evil scheme: Plan A: manipulate someone into casting the Dark Curse. Plan B: Free himself from the dagger. Otherwise, generally hold onto as much power over people as possible. Motive: He needed to reach his son in the World Without Magic; He didn't want to be controlled by anyone; He likes power. Evil deeds: Kills anyone who crosses him or gets in his way, offers rigged deals with loopholes for himself, tortures and maims people for fun, murdered his wife, manipulated Regina into casting the curse, forced Hook to hat the fairies, tried to hat Emma, was about to kill Hook. Consequences: Everyone fought to save his life from poisoning, he's considered family, Belle loves him and married him, his son forgave him and was reconciled with him, his son died, he was held prisoner by Zelena, Belle kicked him out of town (we'll see how long that lasts) King GeorgeEvil Scheme: forced David to pretend to be James and marry Abigail Motive: His kingdom needed money Evil Deeds: tried to kill David, tried to make Snow barren, fought a war against David and Snow, murdered Gus-Gus to frame Ruby Consequences: Lost the war, imprisoned in the mines Cora Evil Scheme: Plan A: become a queen; Plan B: make her daughter a queen; Plan C: become the Dark One and get all Rumple's power Motive: social climbing Evil deeds: murdered Daniel, abused Regina, did a lot of heart ripping, slaughtered the Haven settlement, murdered Eva and Johanna, framed Regina for Archie's murder Consequences: Killed by Snow PanEvil Scheme: Plan A: Use Henry's heart to revive Neverland; Plan B: use the curse to make Storybrooke into a new Neverland Motive: Be young forever Evil deeds: kidnapped kids, manipulated and played mind games with people, held Wendy as a hostage, abandoned his son Consequences: Killed by Rumple Owen Evil Scheme: destroy magic Motive: Regina murdered his father and tried to hold him prisoner in a town that vanished after he left Evil Deeds: kidnapped Henry, triggered the failsafe, tortured Regina Consequences: Killed by having his shadow ripped off Zelena Evil Scheme: go back in time to get the things Regina had Motive: Jealousy Evil deeds: Turned lots of people into flying monkeys (they seem to have gotten better), banished Glinda, cursed Hook, threatened Henry, borrowed Snow's newborn (though it seems to have survived even though the curse worked), tricked Neal into killing himself to revive the Dark One, held Rumple prisoner and made him hurt people. Consequences: killed by Rumple Ingrid Evil Scheme: get Elsa and Emma to join her in a family and get rid of everyone else Motive: she thought that was the only way for anyone to love her, since people without magic can't be trusted Evil Deeds: accidentally killed her sister, tried to turn Anna against Elsa, froze Arendelle, screwed up the best foster home Emma had by trying to push her to use magic, froze Marian, cast the Shattered Sight spell Consequences: died to undo the spell after realizing the error of her ways. So you really don't want to be an arc villain. You'll just end up dead even if you didn't do much harm or realized what you did wrong. Meanwhile, the villains with the highest body counts are considered family by the main characters in spite of their lack of repentance. You only really pay for your evil deeds if you're not a regular character. 7 Link to comment
Rumsy4 December 22, 2014 Author Share December 22, 2014 Great list, Shanna! You only really pay for your evil deeds if you're not a regular character. Or you are Snow White. ;-) 2 Link to comment
jhlipton December 22, 2014 Share December 22, 2014 Or Eva, the root of all evil. Or is evil the root of all Eva??? 2 Link to comment
Shanna Marie December 22, 2014 Share December 22, 2014 You only really pay for your evil deeds if you're not a regular character. Or you are Snow White. ;-) You know something is screwy with your morality when a person who made an error in judgment as a ten-year-old has suffered more for her "sin" than someone who has killed, tortured, enslaved or manipulated hundreds, and when the person who made a judgment error as a child has apologized far more often for the wrong she did. There was an interesting analysis at tor.com about the morality in the stage show of Into the Woods (the writer hasn't seen the movie yet and is basing this on the stage version) that I think is interesting in how it relates to some of the issues in this show, especially this idea about getting happy endings and the villainous motivations. There's a quote from Steven Sondheim that's particularly relevant: It’s about moral responsibility—the responsibility you have in getting your wish not to cheat and step on other people’s toes, because it rebounds. The second act is about the consequences of not only the wishes themselves but of the methods by which the characters achieve their wishes, which are not always proper and moral. Basically, the wishes the various characters in that show have aren't wrong in and of themselves, but the ways some of the characters go about trying to achieve their wishes end up having consequences. They were after something good and worthwhile, but they hurt other people in trying to get it. I'd love to hear what Sondheim would think about this idea that there's some author out there making sure that villains don't get happy endings, as opposed to the villains screwing up their own lives by either going after the wrong things or going after the right things in the wrong way. 3 Link to comment
Faemonic December 29, 2014 Share December 29, 2014 (edited) Hat tip to Camera One on the Writers of OUAT board for this link: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/once-a-time-season-4-733220 Kitsis: It was very important that it still [feels like it's] Once Upon a Time. It’s not the Frozen sequel; it is the characters from Frozen coming to Once Upon a Time. So important stories like Rumple and Belle, Hook and Emma, Regina and Robin Hood, Snow White and Charming and their baby — all those stories that we left last season are still very central to the storytelling of season four and will be explored further. Once fans can relax — we have no intentions of sidelining those stories for Frozen. Heteronormativity ahoy! Well, it is Disney. It's just that I kind of feel like the showrunners aren't standing by their heteronormativity and just keep queer-baiting in the show and on Twitter tags to keep fans interested. I think that's annoying! Also in gender: Why Captain Swan is not rape culture I think that Hook himself as a character is more subversive of heterosexist roles in general and of rape culture specifically than he is a purporter, but he is at some moments a purporter, and the relationship itself developed as a miss and miss (and hit...and miss again.) So, I do have quibbles on a lot of points of this essay, but while I was arguing on what I understood from osmosis to be the general idea before, at least there's this bullet-point definition: Rape culture ... is a culture in which sexual violence and rape are common. This is pernicious in nature by the attitudes, norms, practices, and (how) media condone, normalize, excuse or encourage sexual violence. It includes: Dehumanization of femininity – calling people “sissy”, “pussy”, “not a real man”, etc. Disrespect of diverse gender rolesCommodification of persons as solely a sexual objectHumor that normalizes, trivializes or tolerates rape or sexual violence I'd also take this opportunity to copy-paste the academic qualifiers for objectification, especially on the last two points applied to sexual objectification. Developed by modern Kantian-influenced philosophers Martha Nussbaum and Rae Langton. Objectification of a human being is conveyed through acts that: - undermine subjective experience- undermine independence (a.k.a. DENIAL OF AUTONOMY)- discourage or punish expressions subjective experience (a.k.a. SILENCING)- contrive harmful consequences for actionable motives (that would also be expressions of another person’s subjective experience) (a.k.a. DENIAL OF AGENCY)- convey that the objectified person is interchangeable with nonliving objects or any other fungible person (a.k.a. FUNGIBILITY)- convey that the objectified person has no personal boundaries or limitations that are worthy of consideration (a.k.a. IN/VIOLABILITY)- reduce the objectified person to a service (a.k.a. INSTRUMENTALITY)- encompass that above reduction to that person’s whole purpose, thereby granting ownership of the objectified person to the subject- reducing a person to their body- reducing a person to their appearance. The thing is, we all do it. When was the last time you greeted the janitor or garbage takeaway person? It's still a good idea to teach Stranger Danger to kids, even though that's objectifying other people into some interchangeable shady-looking thing. Of course strangers would be objectified: you don't know them, we have no clue as to their subjective world. Objectification is principally a means of survival and continual functioning. We can't keep getting distracted by each and every single other person's innermost hopes, dreams, and fears. The problem comes when objectification is combined with an imbalance of societal power in a culture, for example rape culture as defined above. It's not the act of forced intercourse itself, but the volume of micro-aggressive objectification aimed at a specific group of people, in the case of sexual violence that is usually women, that makes objectification of women a bad thing. It isn't fair that other genders are protected from suffering these constant threats, just because of culture. It very unnecessarily makes life difficult for people, which is why discrimination is so awful. So...I kind of understand how Hook ruined the show for a lot of people. A live-action television show starring Disney princesses was feminist in the way of proposing the radical idea that women are people. It was refreshing that the main characters grappled with self-esteem issues, parental abandonment, and false accusations of murder with maybe some guys to serve as love interests or get rescued. When Hook shows up and flirts, it brings the real world back with all the pressures of sexual objectification when up until that point, the show was a relatively safe escape from all that. Personally, it was still a safe escape from all that because I felt that they established a world where the societal power usually leaned towards women. On that seesaw, way low on the seesaw without blue blood or magic, Hook wouldn't actually want sex and be pressuring these women to put out: he just wants to not be tied to a tree and left out for the ogres to tear limb-from-limb. If he doesn't self-objectify sexually then the world in-show becomes very dangerous and threatening for him. I considered that very interesting, so while Hook ruined the show for some people, for me he quickly became the number one reason to keep watching. But I blame the writers for wanting to eat their cake and have it too. When Hook does his, "Jab you with my sword, you'll feel it" line, I would interpret that as the cue for the audience to boo the sleazeball and cheer when Emma knocks him out. While I've got my "it's fiction, it's a completely other world" firewall (in my psyche...people who don't have that shouldn't have to get one because:) I recognize that the writers live in a gender-discriminatory world and will coast on that if they don't have the instinct or contemplation to write subversions of gender all the time. The writers prrrobably don't consider any of this. That's not an excuse, of course, catch me on a bad day and it's a fire-breathing condemnation...but apparently they don't think the way a lot of you lovely articulate emotional-resonance conscious viewers on these boards do think about character aspects that you don't need a degree in women's studies to point out is iffy but should be pretty obvious. So I inhale the fire of my ire and decide that it is what it is. Edited December 29, 2014 by Faemonic 3 Link to comment
Serena December 29, 2014 Share December 29, 2014 (edited) So...I kind of understand how Hook ruined the show for a lot of people. A live-action television show starring Disney princesses was feminist in the way of proposing the radical idea that women are people. It was refreshing that the main characters grappled with self-esteem issues, parental abandonment, and false accusations of murder with maybe some guys to serve as love interests or get rescued. When Hook shows up and flirts, it brings the real world back with all the pressures of sexual objectification when up until that point, the show was a relatively safe escape from all that. Yeah, no, I still don't get it. Long before Hook showed up, the show featured a unrepentant rapist. That same rapist has never been called out (on the show or out) for the crime, the victim is dead, and she has a far bigger role than Hook does. The exact same episode Hook was introduced in featured a main character (again with a far bigger role that Hook has) murdering his ex-wife for leaving him. And you know, I'm gonna also mention 20-something Nealfire starting a sexual relationship with an homeless, high school dropout 16-year-old, because that is also creepy. I can "get" people wanting a completely sex-free show and being disappointed that Once is not that show. What I don't get is why they insist it was Hook in season 2 that changed the show from "sex-free" from "sexual harassment all the time" since of the three main villains, he's the only one who's never been involved in domestic violence. But I blame the writers for wanting to eat their cake and have it too. When Hook does his, "Jab you with my sword, you'll feel it" line, I would interpret that as the cue for the audience to boo the sleazeball and cheer when Emma knocks him out. While I've got my "it's fiction, it's a completely other world" firewall (in my psyche...people who don't have that shouldn't have to get one because:) I recognize that the writers live in a gender-discriminatory world and will coast on that if they don't have the instinct or contemplation to write subversions of gender all the time. But isn't that what happens when Hook makes an unwelcome sexual joke? Like you said, he gets punched in the face at the end of the sword fight. He gets poked in his (broken) ribs when he refers to his "attachment". Compare to Regina and Rumple and the incidents I talked about before: they've never been called out (well, Rumple has, by Hook, but then Belle, a hero, acted like Rumple wasn't at fault so...), and Nealfire gets apologized to by Emma!!. I'm not saying people can't be triggered by whatever they want. If someone out there has been traumatized by Colin's long lost twin and thus can't bear to look at Hook, then whatever, do what you need to feel safe. But I call bullshit on people claiming "Once was my sexual violence-free show until Hook came along with his penis jokes!!" when the show has an actual rapist in its main cast. Edited December 29, 2014 by Serena 9 Link to comment
Faemonic December 29, 2014 Share December 29, 2014 (edited) I'm not saying people can't be triggered by whatever they want. If someone out there has been traumatized by Colin's long lost twin and thus can't bear to look at Hook, then whatever, do what you need to feel safe. Getting this out of the way: I'll say that people can't be triggered by whatever they want, because people don't choose their triggers and I would trust that nobody wants to be so distressed. If they can articulate why, all the better. Of course they don't have to explain and should feel safe within their boundaries. What troubles me is people who enjoy Hook as a character with reasons that they can also articulate getting "split black" and those subjective experience denied, those spaces made unsafe, and, if it comes to that, a common right to safely explore one's sexuality through fiction (because it's fiction, it's well within the bounds of an individual's headcanon) is policed and discouraged with the language of social justice. Yeah, no, I still don't get it. Long before Hook showed up, the show featured a unrepentant rapist. That same rapist has never been called out (on the show or out) for the crime, the victim is dead, and she has a far bigger role than Hook does. The exact same episode Hook was introduced in featured a main character (again with a far bigger role that Hook has) murdering his ex-wife for leaving him. And you know, I'm gonna also mention 20-something Nealfire starting a sexual relationship with an homeless, high school dropout 16-year-old, because that is also creepy. Graham did return to show some flabbergasting ambiguity in terms of cursed consent in Storybrooke at least (with Fairy Tale Land brushed under the rug being hella rapey), and Milah wasn't the only powerless and contrite woman that Rumple killed, and technically Nealfire would be at least over a century and the age difference was hardly the worst aspect of that relationsh...what I'm typing isn't making anything sound better, is it. I can "get" people wanting a completely sex-free show and being disappointed that Once is not that show. What I don't get is why they insist it was Hook in season 2 that changed the show from "sex-free" from "sexual harassment all the time" since of the three main villains, he's the only one who's never been involved in domestic violence. (...) I call bullshit on people claiming "Once was my sexual violence-free show until Hook came along with his penis jokes!!" when the show has an actual rapist in its main cast. I wouldn't call bullshit on it for a couple simple reasons: Rape by magic: difficult to relate to except by almost-abstract symbolism. Getting winked at when you're not in the mood: suffered daily. But good point: Hook seems to get a disproportionate amount of hate, and I think that's probably because it's more reactionary than realized. Graham and Milah are dead. That's atrocious. What I think is a shame is that the following go without consideration: 1.) Hook sees Emma as a person, to the depth that he solved Pan's puzzle to Emma in Neverland a season early and within 15 minutes of meeting her. That's just not something that he can funge, even on this show where everyone's an orphan. 2.) Hook evidently doesn't believe that women are weaker than men. He asked Emma to give him a boost, which is unusual in the world that I come from but apparently in Fairy Tale Land it ain't no thing. 3.) As the linked essay says, Hook totally complemented Emma's competence with the compass and the giant while he was buried under a bunch of rocks. 4.) Hook's negotiations with Cora were painfully self-objectifying and didn't even work because he's out-peered and out-magicked pirate riffraff. What male privilege? I could go on. Although, while not domestic, he did steal Aurora's heart, torture a kidnapped and trapped Archie, hit Belle unconscious and shoot her in the back. He's apologized since to Belle since then and even spoke up for her (specifically, Belle's informed consent, autonomy and agency) at the docks with Rumple, but it's not as if Hook has never done anything wrong ever along those lines. But isn't that what happens when Hook makes an unwelcome sexual joke? Like you said, he gets punched in the face at the end of the sword fight. He gets poked in his (broken) ribs when he refers to his "attachment". But nothing happened when Hook referred to being tied up in bed "and not in the good way." Wait, there's a good way? Killian, how do you know that?? 5.) Hook implied not to be a dom all the way. Subversion! But yes, I still chalk that, and this... Compare to Regina and Rumple and the incidents I talked about before: they've never been called out (well, Rumple has, by Hook, but then Belle, a hero, acted like Rumple wasn't at fault so...), and Nealfire gets apologized to by Emma!! ...up to the writers wanting it all the haphazard ways that they can have it, and not having a lens or paradigm that would notice anything being off and awful or just plain inconsistent. Edited December 29, 2014 by Faemonic 2 Link to comment
Rumsy4 December 29, 2014 Author Share December 29, 2014 (edited) Yeah, no, I still don't get it. Long before Hook showed up, the show featured a unrepentant rapist. That same rapist has never been called out (on the show or out) for the crime, the victim is dead, and she has a far bigger role than Hook does. Graham's rape seemed like a moral event horizon as a viewer. I remember thinking that Regina's redemption seemed unlikely after they had shown us such a gross violation of another person. In the very next official podcast, A&E evaded a question about the rape by joking that maybe Regina and Graham had played chess in the bedchamber. I kept thinking they would show a scene later on of Regina not going through with the act at the last moment. But nothing. It also added to the fact that Regina's Storybrooke relationship was not consensual, and that she had roofied people into noncon relationships through the Curse. When it comes to Regina, it goes beyond white-washing. It's clear that the creators think of these acts as one of the many bold and audacious deeds of the evil queen. Incidentally, I wonder how Marian feels about her husband choosing a mass murdering rapist over herself. That's right--"she understands". Don't tell me noone in the EF knew the Evil Queen had her "toys". Besides, the irony/tragedy of Regina ranting at Emma for breaking up her 2 days old relationship, when Emma doesn't even know Regina crushed Graham's heart for breaking up with her, still rankles. That's rape culture for you. Talking about rape culture in this show is a pointless exercise from an in-story perspective. Even Charming has said and done things that can be construed as part of RC. In fact, his over-protective dad acts gets my goat, particularly since he named his son after Person. However, he is at best somewhat sexist, but is overall quite supportive of feminine leadership, and women. Same with Hook. I totally get why some people would think he acted/acts sleazy, even if I don't. But looking at the bigger picture, it is rather clear he likes equal relationships, and has no problem following the leadership of women. So, even if Hook is not a perfect feminist icon, he seems quite alright when looked at objectively and through the seasons. I think we need to look holistically at a character in order to make proper assessments. However, IMO, a lot of the Hook-haters tend to focus on one or two things, but refuse to consider them from a broader perspective. Edited December 29, 2014 by Rumsy4 10 Link to comment
ShadowFacts December 29, 2014 Share December 29, 2014 Graham did return to show some flabbergasting ambiguity in terms of cursed consent in Storybrooke at least (with Fairy Tale Land brushed under the rug being hella rapey), and Milah wasn't the only powerless and contrite woman that Rumple killed, and technically Nealfire would be at least over a century and the age difference was hardly the worst aspect of that relationsh...what I'm typing isn't making anything sound better, is it. Other people in town were operating under cursed consent, but Graham had the added bonus of having his heart in Regina's direct control. She was talking into it like a walkie talkie if I'm remembering correctly. So not even cursed consent. No choice, no consent. 8 Link to comment
Faemonic December 29, 2014 Share December 29, 2014 I think we need to look holistically at a character in order to make proper assessments. In the end, the assessment that I make for those pitfalls is, "Forget the character, the creative team doesn't know...and doesn't want to know." With Regina and Graham, that pit is a tunnel right through the planet. Link to comment
Dani-Ellie December 29, 2014 Share December 29, 2014 (edited) However, IMO, a lot of the Hook-haters tend to focus on one or two things, but refuse to consider them from a broader perspective. I definitely agree with this. Or they stopped watching the show a season and a half ago but still insert themselves into debates about how Captain Swan is rape culture and Hook is awful when Emma's the one who's been setting the pace of the relationship. Only they don't know that because they stopped watching the show. The character has changed. The character has grown. His innuendo didn't get him anywhere, least of all with Emma. He got rolled eyes, glares, and jabs in his broken ribs. If Hook was still Captain Innuendo, winking at anyone in a skirt, and that got all the female characters all swoon-y, okay, fine. But not a single member of Team Princess was buying what that guy was selling. Season 2 Hook was an asshole, and the characters treated him as such. Edited December 29, 2014 by Dani-Ellie 6 Link to comment
Rumsy4 December 29, 2014 Author Share December 29, 2014 (edited) Other people in town were operating under cursed consent, but Graham had the added bonus of having his heart in Regina's direct control. She was talking into it like a walkie talkie if I'm remembering correctly. So not even cursed consent. No choice, no consent. Agreed. On the issue of Cursed Consent, there are a couple of things to consider. When both the participants are cursed (like Mary Margaret & Whale, and Kathryn & David), it is not their fault (even if Charming punched Whale later on, but Frederick didn't punch Charming). However, Regina is still responsible for all the unintended cheating and adultery that was happening. So, it was another WTF moment when Snow equated her cursed affair with David with OQ crypt sex. Apparently the actors spoke for an hour before they came up with a headcanon to make that moment work (Snow was just trying to help Regina). And even if Regina did not hold Graham's heart, she was not cursed, and as such, subjecting him to a relationship he would not consent to with his free will. The heart-thing makes it all the more despicable. In the end, the assessment that I make for those pitfalls is, "Forget the character, the creative team doesn't know...and doesn't want to know." That's the crux of the matter right there. A&E are inherently and intentionally biased writers. They are not telling us an objective tale. They present things with a certain slant that serves their plot and characterization for the moment. Edited December 29, 2014 by Rumsy4 5 Link to comment
Featherhat December 29, 2014 Share December 29, 2014 Heteronormativity ahoy! Well, it is Disney. It's just that I kind of feel like the showrunners aren't standing by their heteronormativity and just keep queer-baiting in the show and on Twitter tags to keep fans interested. I think that's annoying! I think they are baiting with "queer bating" but not necessarily "on purpose". SQ has been so very prevalent in fandom that they seem to feel the need to address it but aren't prepared to "go there" (nor do I think they should for that particular pairing). However as you say, so much of their "base source" (Disney) barely has any queer characters. Frozen and Brave are famous for having a eponymous princess who doesn't get married at the end, and they are almost the only ones. However I really do think they could do better, and not just SQ teases which I agree again are annoying. However there's no excuse for a "lesser" fairytale heroine to not find her princess or gender reversal, even if just for one episode. 4 Link to comment
The Cake is a Pie December 29, 2014 Share December 29, 2014 Regarding Graham, Regina had been raping him far longer than just the 28 cursed years. She took his heart right after he let Snow go in the EF and then was like "send him to my bedchambers," so she had been using him as her personal sex toy for those years before casting the curse as well. I'll never understand the "rape culture" argument against Hook. Not only is it not true as far as how he has been portrayed onscreen, but if there are viewers who actually believe it is, then I don't know why they watch this show because there are far worse examples of it coming from the two characters this show likes to focus on the most. I have no problem with someone hating Hook for no reason than they just dislike him, or think he has no chemistry with Emma, or prefer Emma with someone else. But the "rape culture" argument is baffling. Are they Regina fans? Then they are hypocrites because she is an actual rapist, who then also murdered her victim. She could have built an affair with her into Graham's cursed persona. Not that would have made the relationship any less rapey, but she deliberately did not and forced him to sleep with her anyway. And then killed him. Or are they Rumple fans? The person who crushed his own wife's heart? Who puts his current wife under a sleeping spell whenever it's inconvenient for her to be conscious? Who has had creepy master-student sex with Zelena and Cora, and had a creepy master-slave relationship with Belle? 9 Link to comment
Serena December 29, 2014 Share December 29, 2014 (edited) Who puts his current wife under a sleeping spell whenever it's inconvenient for her to be conscious? Lord, I never even realized that until you pointed it out! Now I'm 50 times more grossed out by Rumbelle than before, and I didn't think that was possible. Edited December 29, 2014 by Serena 4 Link to comment
KingOfHearts December 29, 2014 Share December 29, 2014 (edited) Who puts his current wife under a sleeping spell whenever it's inconvenient for her to be conscious? And probably lying to her in the process at that. "Oh, better put you under for your own safety during the Shattered Sight curse!" Imp, please. Edited December 29, 2014 by KingOfHearts Link to comment
Rumsy4 December 29, 2014 Author Share December 29, 2014 Rumple also froze Belle on their honeymoon while he did the dagger switcheroo. He poofed her from Ingrid's cave when she was under the spell of the mirror. Then he apparently put a sleeping spell on her when the Shattered Sight spell hit. We don't know if she consented to that or not, because the last we saw before the SS spell took effect, he had merely sealed her inside the shop. The SDCC interviewer's question about overtones of domestic abuse don't seem so off now, does it? 2 Link to comment
Serena December 29, 2014 Share December 29, 2014 I honestly don't see how Bobby and Emilie were surprised by that particular question. Even if you don't think it applies to Rumbelle, it's one of the main things people mention re: B&TB. You are gonna portray that couple and you never give a thought to "is it? Isn't it? Do we want it to be, and if not, how do we avoid it?" Jennifer has whole essays about the way Emma eats being connected to her childhood abuse, and they don't make the basic BATB/domestic violence connection? 2 Link to comment
KingOfHearts December 29, 2014 Share December 29, 2014 The abuse didn't bother me as much in EF because Rumple was still portrayed as a monster. Belle wasn't enabling him, either. She knew exactly what she would be getting and she stood against it. There was no whitewashing or false redemption going on. But here we are in S4, after almost every single character claiming he's "turned over a new leaf", the tables have turned. With DumBelle just sitting and pretending nothing's a problem for most of 4A. That's where things get hokey. Link to comment
Shanna Marie December 29, 2014 Share December 29, 2014 One social issue that they don't seem to know what to do with in this show is the class structure. I was thinking about this while watching Into the Woods, where the peasants immediately bow in the presence of the prince and are deferential and tongue-tied. The gulf is so obviously huge. It's probably a worldbuilding failure, but while they do have peasants and commoners and nobility on this show, it's treated as a non-issue unless it's an issue. There are characters who are definitely commoners/peasants/lower class/working class, like David, Granny and Red, the dwarves (though there we have the additional issue of them apparently being bred to be laborers), Cora, and presumably Robin and Marian (if her family was poor enough that him stealing their horse was devastating, and they seem to have dropped the bit from the legends in which he's a nobleman stripped of his lands). Rumple started as a working class person then vaulted himself into quasi-nobility with magical power. Hook is something of a cipher in that he's clearly well-educated and was a military officer but isn't of noble birth unless either he's been keeping that secret or he doesn't know. He may be the only true middle-class person on the show. Otherwise, everyone seems to be royalty or nobility -- Belle lived in a castle, Snow is a princess, Regina's father was a prince, Aurora's a princess, Elsa's a queen, Anna's a princess, etc. Most of the time, there's no difference. They're all friends, there's no bowing or deference. And that's cool. Princess Snow White married a farmer (unless you count David as a prince by conquest since he took over George's kingdom). Except then they also have the royalty making decisions for everyone without taking their opinions into consideration, like casting the second curse or sending the Arendelle folks home without opening the possibility for anyone else who wanted to get back, or even Snow freeing Regina after a court had passed judgment on her. Can you really have an egalitarian society in which the leaders are born into their positions and upward mobility requires magic or deception? Can you all be friends and equals while one person still has the power to make big decisions without any kind of a vote? 4 Link to comment
Amerilla December 30, 2014 Share December 30, 2014 See, this is where I think this whole rape culture debate always goes off the rails. It devolves into this weird pissing match over who is better or worse in this race to the bottom...or which fandom are bigger hypocrites...or why don't you just accept that A, or B, or C has changed, dammit, just LET IT GO. (Too soon? Or too late?) From what I've seen, the rape culture argument caught fire within the overall fandom because it's the easiest "social issue" to see and to define. So much of the problematic nature of the show is hidden behind "magic," rendering it bloodless and somehow less obvious. Hook is not magic, and so - in S2 especially - his actions were very hands-on and (sadly) very familiar in a culture where violence against women is not exactly rare. To me, what were really arguing is not about Hook as a character, but about the choices the A&E have made in constructing Hook (and others) as characters. As the seasons have progressed, we're seeing very clearly that the Master Storytellers have a warped and juvenile approach to sex and violence. They shovel this shit out there, and they they completely refuse to take responsibility for it when fans point out the really obvious implications of those stories. They deflect and ignore and belittle and finally, they just run out the clock. We either stop bringing it up or it gets overwritten by new stories and new problems, and it finally turns into inside-baseball within the hardcore fandoms. A&E want to have their cake and their pie and their ice cream - they want us to look at a character like Hook as Captain Innuendo - "fun in Vegas" - but also a serious menace, a tortured romantic anti-hero, and a tortured romantic hero. The problem is, when you toss all that into a blender, you end up with an unappealing, morally gray slop. Same with Regina and Rumpel - they want you to love them, fear them, pity them and root for them all at the same time. But these things are not compatible. It does not work over the long arc of the series. 9 Link to comment
Dani-Ellie December 30, 2014 Share December 30, 2014 (edited) To me, what were really arguing is not about Hook as a character, but about the choices the A&E have made in constructing Hook (and others) as characters. That may very well be, but I've had someone tell me that Hook demanded a kiss from Emma as payment for saving David's life, which is not at all how it happened. Hook joked with her about getting a kiss in return for saving her father's life. He did not have her cornered or backed up against a wall; there was no demand. It was a joking conversation that Emma ultimately went along with of her own volition and free will. Then they argue that Emma's volition and free will are controlled by the writers, so Emma's agency doesn't matter. However, that also means Hook's actions and words are controlled by the writers, so they've just blown up their own argument. Because if everyone's actions are controlled by the writers, that's an entirely different argument than the one they're having. It's one thing to say, "This kind of writing is problematic because of Reasons X, Y, and Z." It's a completely different thing to say, "This character is problematic because of Reasons X, Y, and Z." One's meta-level and the other is text-level. Trying to combine the two into the same argument is never going to work because you're going to have people saying, "But all of the big developments of the relationship have been at Emma's initiation!" and pointing to in-show, canon examples and the opposition saying, "That's because the writers wrote it that way!" as a way to dismiss it. Edited December 30, 2014 by Dani-Ellie 9 Link to comment
Shanna Marie December 30, 2014 Share December 30, 2014 I have to admit that I've reached the point that I automatically tune out anything in which the term "rape culture" is used because although I'm sure it started with good intentions, I think that the majority of times I've seen the term used, it's been co-opted to mean "any behavior I personally don't like or any behavior by a person I don't like and you can't argue with me because social justice." It's been trivialized and applied to such minor behaviors that it's lost a lot of meaning and I think has even ended up hurting the cause because it then becomes too easy to look at what's being labeled an example of "rape culture" and then dismiss the whole thing. So if a fictional character teasingly suggesting a kiss as a reward for saving a life but otherwise making no move to force the kiss is supposedly rape culture, then it's easy to say that this whole rape culture thing is people getting worked up over nothing, and that means some very serious behaviors that do need to be examined get thrown out with the bathwater. I guess I'd rather use terms like "sexist," "obnoxious" or "rude" for stuff like innuendo and jokes (depending on the context) and save the term "rape" for more serious things so as to avoid the boy who cried wolf syndrome. And I hate to see the term used as a weapon in 'shipper wars because that really trivializes it. Really, David is far worse than Hook about treating women like possessions. They play his gripe against Whale for humor, but I cringe about it. It was something that happened during the curse, and he can hardly blame Snow or Whale when both of them believed they were single at the time, and besides, what about David and Kathryn? She was buying a pregnancy test, so the same thing happened there and he can shut up about feeling all betrayed. And then there's all his telling Hook what will and won't happen with him and Emma without so much as consulting Emma about her wishes. It would be one thing if Emma had ever told David that she wished Hook would leave her alone, but it's really obnoxious for him to presume to try to push Hook away when Emma is perfectly capable of doing so herself and has chosen not to. (And no, I don't see that behavior as "rape culture," just sexism and obnoxiousness.) 11 Link to comment
ShadowFacts December 30, 2014 Share December 30, 2014 As the seasons have progressed, we're seeing very clearly that the Master Storytellers have a warped and juvenile approach to sex and violence. Yes, they really, really do and they like to be naughty and subversive. On a Sunday night network show. The more controversy they can stir up, the better they like it. If they presented more thoughtful, nuanced, balanced approaches to relationships and class/race/gender issues, and people praised it in the media, they would probably be less happy about it than they are right now with more vitriolic slings and arrows. 2 Link to comment
Faemonic December 30, 2014 Share December 30, 2014 (edited) To me, what we're really arguing is not about Hook as a character, but about the choices the A&E have made in constructing Hook (and others) as characters. I appreciate analyses both Watsonian and Doylist, but I definitely agree that it absolutely must be consistent. they argue that Emma's volition and free will are controlled by the writers, so Emma's agency doesn't matter. However, that also means Hook's actions and words are controlled by the writers, so they've just blown up their own argument Very well put! One social issue that they don't seem to know what to do with in this show is the class structure. I was thinking about this while watching Into the Woods, where the peasants immediately bow in the presence of the prince and are deferential and tongue-tied. The gulf is so obviously huge. There's this interesting essay about how the self-esteem boost shows in Belle versus all the peasants. I don't know how well Snow and Cinderella knew each other while they were dancing, but in retrospect it's definitely a huge leap from Young Snow's "Tiaras aren't for the help, Johanna!" to Queen Snow White "You're an inspiration to us all, you uppity peasant!" So...yeah, they're definitely not going Game of Thrones on the classism where bringing your bastard-born girlfriend to a royal wedding is awkwaaard. I mean, not to drag this back to Hook, but he referred to Snow White as "Milady" and everybody just went with it. Excuse me? In the land without magic, a real gentleman would know better. You don't call a Princess Regent "Milady" unless Leopold revoked her legitimacy after declaring Eva a traitor for not having a son and needed the marriage annulled and the queen beheaded because the church wouldn't allow the king to remarry otherwise. Or something. Or maybe Hook is secretly an illiterate peasant who tosses royal titles around willy-nilly and just learned what manners he could in service (as in, warrior class...not like, Downton Abbey service.) Killian! Watch your words! Words mean things! ...Unless, apparently, you're scripting this show, because we don't know if Snowing-Millsia became a diumvirate or who ruled as Regent or why it wasn't a big deal that Emma couldn't inherit a throne if she were born a girl rather than she wouldn't-couldn't because she was bred an American in a democracy. It's all as haphazard as the identity politics, the timeline, and the magic system. Which would be fine if it had emotional resonance and made emotional sense, but character development and interactions are thrown out the window for shiny new pop culture references. Apparently everyone in Storybrooke has like one-hour work weeks and can still afford Burberry and Dolce & Gabbana. And apparently no job or welfare for Will, who has an apartment with electricity and an ice maker, but eats one cup of spiked coffee for lunch and dinner. Which is supposed to be funny because it's sad, but if I think too much it makes no sense. (I still don't know if Snow White is a Queen or Princess Regent.) Edited December 30, 2014 by Faemonic 3 Link to comment
Curio December 30, 2014 Share December 30, 2014 (edited) As the seasons have progressed, we're seeing very clearly that the Master Storytellers have a warped and juvenile approach to sex and violence. I think my response is more suited for the morality thread, so I'll post there instead. Edited December 30, 2014 by Curio Link to comment
Curio December 30, 2014 Share December 30, 2014 (edited) From the social issues thread: As the seasons have progressed, we're seeing very clearly that the Master Storytellers have a warped and juvenile approach to sex and violence. What frustrates me the most about Adam & Eddy’s warped view is that they probably think they’re doing the younger crowd a favor by not showing realistic acts of violence or sex on the show, but that only skews the younger viewers’ ideas about those topics even more. It’s like they think we can still “have hope” for the villains because we don’t actually see them on screen do real-world acts of violence, so it’s somehow more acceptable. We can’t physically crush glowing hearts in real life, or create a spell that can turn everyone on each other, or travel back in time to change events so that it wipes out everyone from existence, or turn someone into a snail and step on them, or use the Darth Vader choke hold. So when we see the villains do these magical acts of violence, Adam & Eddy expect us to put our filters on and think “Well, what they did is still forgivable because I’m viewing this through a fantasy lens.” Perhaps that’s why some fans (not usually on these boards, but opinions from other places) have a harder time with accepting Hook’s violent acts than accepting Regina and Rumple’s. Since Hook doesn’t have magic, he has to resort to using his mortal skills to accomplish his violent acts, like using his hook or sword to stab someone, or he has to get dirty and use his own hand to whack someone upside the head or punch someone in the face. Those are things that can actually be done in the real world, so it makes Hook’s violence appear more brutal, even though Regina and Rumple have done far worse things (and have done them more frequently). And then there’s the incredibly warped mentality about sex on this show, which I’ve just concluded that Adam & Eddy must have grown up in sheltered households and only get their ideas about sex from the media. Whenever we’re shown sex on the show, it’s almost always presented in a negative light. Regina and Graham’s cringe worthy “relationship,” the scandal between Mary Margaret and David trying to get together, Whale gets punched in the face even though he had a cursed personality, Emma walks in on her parents and probably wishes she had mental brain bleach, Hook’s sexual innuendos seem to be the writers implying to the audience that he’s a villain, Emma and Neal’s whole teenage situation that forced her to give up her baby in jail, Neal asking Tamara to give him a workout while the audience knows she’s the villain, Cora regrets her romp with Jonathan and dumps baby Zelena off in a cyclone, Rumple and Belle are never shown in bed together – but the fact that they’re intimate while Rumple is lying all the time is way screwed up, and then there’s the whole crypt sex between Regina and Robin while his current wife is still frozen. There’s probably more that I’m still forgetting (it's been a while since I've watched all of Season 1, so I don't remember how the writers presented Emma's line about her one night stands or how we were supposed to interpret Ruby's promiscuous personality). My point is that these examples are more than enough instances to show where Once stands on sex and sexuality – if you have sex, it’s usually a moral grey area that comes with repercussions. The sad thing is, an instance where this show could actually show an on-screen positive depiction of sex between consenting lovers will probably take place in Offscreenville over the hiatus, because let’s be real, how can those two last 6 more weeks without doing it? (And if they haven't done it in 6-weeks time...damn. Those two have more patience than 50 Kindergarten teachers combined.) Edited December 30, 2014 by Curio 2 Link to comment
Camera One December 30, 2014 Share December 30, 2014 (edited) As per typical children's movies, what this show has is a positive depiction of kissing, as the culmination of romantic attraction. All the added sexual elements from Regina taking Graham to his bedchamber, the off-screen one-night stands, etc., are an attempt by A&E to be edgy and make the show more adult with stuff that presumably will go over the heads of younger children. I personally think it's a case of having things both ways, but ultimately failing at both. I don't feel comfortable watching the show with kids who are 10 years old, since stuff like Regina and Robin in the crypt will not go over their heads completely, given the types of stuff they can see in movies or the internet nowadays. It's also not innocent enough to watch with grandma without awkward moments. So it's not child-safe enough while at the same time, it's not serious grown-up fare either. Personally, even as an adult, I actually have no problem watching children's movies devoid of sex and violence as long as the plot is engaging, and I think it is possible to have deep character exploration without necessarily delving into sex and violence. So if they had gone that route, I would have been fine with it. But they didn't, so the half-way in between makes the morality all wonky. Edited December 30, 2014 by Camera One 2 Link to comment
KingOfHearts December 30, 2014 Share December 30, 2014 (edited) The negative sex doesn't bother me as much because it's a drama that strays into soap opera territory all too often, and yes this is a "Disney" show, but I believe the morality where violence goes is even less realistic than family/children movies. In Snow White, the dwarves toss the Evil Queen off a cliff. In Tangled, the good guys trip Mother Gothel and throw her off a tower. Prince Eric stabs Ursula with a ship's bow and Mulan kills an entire army with a triggered avalanche. Don't tell me heroes don't kill, because they do. Letting villains live to murder and torture others is a far worse crime. Edited December 30, 2014 by KingOfHearts Link to comment
Camera One December 30, 2014 Share December 30, 2014 (edited) In a lot of those childrens' stories, the villains and their henchmen are de-humanized, so it is very black and white. It applies on "Once" with the Black Knights, which usually have their masks on. I have no problem with the morality of childrens' tales like "The Lord of the Rings" or Harry Potter, where the heroes try to avoid killing and a lot of weight is put on mercy (eg. Gandalf counselling Frodo not to kill Gollum, Dumbledore saying it was a good thing not to kill Pettigrew). But the writers of "Once" have double-standards in this regard. Rumple and Regina killing is "fun", and we should not care about the lowly peasants when those fun villains kill them for kicks. But when a hero is backed against a wall like Snow was with Cora, and she needed to kill Cora in self-defense (this usually occurs in the climax of the Disney animated films like the Dwarves and the Evil Queen, Eric with Ursula, Philip with Maleficient), there should be no problem with the hero saving him/herself. I actually like it even better when the villain defeats him or herself by doing something stupid or greedy and they end up dying because of that. With, Snow vs. Cora, they not only took away from Snow a huge victory, but they made her seem morally depraved, and they had that sentiment repeated over and over again, even an entire season after it happened ("Bleeding Through"). That is what's so messed up about this show. It's interesting to look back at the megavillains so far, and only Cora was killed by a hero. The Snow Queen committed suicide. Peter Pan died in a murder-suicide. And a villain killed Zelena after she was disarmed. Edited December 30, 2014 by Camera One 3 Link to comment
DigitalCount December 30, 2014 Share December 30, 2014 I have a problem with calling Malcolm's death a murder-suicide. In my view Pan was more dangerous than Cora, and he had no problem telling his son to his face that he'd drop the hammer on his loved ones. That makes this equal to Cora becoming the Dark One. Link to comment
kili December 30, 2014 Share December 30, 2014 In Snow White, the dwarves toss the Evil Queen off a cliff. They do not. She's essentially struck by lightening. The dwarfs chase her up the hill and she tries to return the favor by levering a rock to roll down the hill and crush them. Lightening strikes the cliff she is standing on, causing the outcrop to crumble and she tumbles to her death. I would guess that Disney didn't want any of the heroes to have blood on their hands. I believe that it isn't until "Sleeping Beauty" (almost 22 years later) that a Disney hero kills a Disney villain. To this day, there aren't a lot of Disney movies where the villain gets killed by the hero. Sometimes, they avoid the Grimm ending and just ignore the villain. Sometimes the villain ends up in jail or just fuming ("Robin Hood" or "101 Dalmatians"). At other times, they die due to bad luck (e.g. The Evil Queen with her lightening bad luck and Gaston losing his balance and tumbling to his death while trying to stab the Beast in the back. Frollo dies because he stops to monologue about smiting people while standing on an unstable gargoyle). Even Mother Gothel in "Tangled" doesn't die because she is tripped by the "frog" (nuance). She crumbles to dust before she hits the ground (so I guess it could be said that Flynn killed her by cutting off Rapunzel's hair, but that is a totally unintended consequence). Scar's death is implied at the hands of his minions off-screen. Phillip ("Sleeping Beauty), Eric ("The Little Mermaid"), Mulan & Mushu (in "Mulan". Mulan kills a lot of soldiers in an avalanche and Mushu takes out the leader with fireworks) and Milo ("Atlantis") are the only ones I can remember where the Disney hero did the deed. So, in that respect, A&E are probably playing it close to the source material (although, fate should probably be killing more of these villains. I could go for a good falling to their death trope for the next villain death). I don't have a problem with the heros not killing the villains. If they can subdue them, they should. Unnecessary killing is unnecessary. I just wish Regina and Rumple weren't frequently called heroes for killing/stopping the other lesser-villains. And I wish that they wouldn't keep bringing up that Snow is dark for killing Cora because that was one of the few examples where killing the villain was the only course of action available for saving a lot of other lives. I don't understand why her plotting to kill Medusa is okay (when Medusa seemed to be minding her own business in her own ruined villa - just don't go in there if you don't want to look at her ugly face and be turned to stone) while her killing the woman who killed her mother, killed her substitute mother right in front of her for no reason at all, orchestrated the entire Regina-is-going-to-have-a-life-long-revenge-against-you plot (which led to so many other problems) and was actively planning on killing the rest of her family if not the entire town is so bad. The fact that she thought so fast on her feet to trick Regina into helping her kill Cora (when Regina caught her with the heart on her hands) should be celebrated as a "Hell, yah!" moment. It shouldn't be constantly brought up as a "Snow did bad" moment. 4 Link to comment
Camera One December 30, 2014 Share December 30, 2014 I have a problem with calling Malcolm's death a murder-suicide. In my view Pan was more dangerous than Cora, and he had no problem telling his son to his face that he'd drop the hammer on his loved ones. That makes this equal to Cora becoming the Dark One. I only called it a murder-suicide because Rumple killed someone else while killing himself at the same time. For sure, Peter Pan was a great threat and needed to be stopped one way or another. 1 Link to comment
Curio December 30, 2014 Share December 30, 2014 It's interesting to look back at the megavillains so far, and only Cora was killed by a hero. The Snow Queen committed suicide. Peter Pan died in a murder-suicide. And a villain killed Zelena after she was disarmed. Honestly, that's probably the way it'll play out until the series ends. Ever since Regina proclaimed "Heroes don't kill," there's no way one of the core main characters will have a hand in killing a big bad again. Unless they want to shift Regina back to being more villainous like Rumple, of course. But if a big bad has Emma trapped in a corner and they're about to shoot deadly magic at her, should she not be able to shoot magic back at them? Should she feel guilty if her magic is powerful enough to kill them? Should she stifle her magic just enough to paralyze them, but not to kill them? What if she can't control her powers enough to make that distinction? Shouldn't Emma, as the "savior," know that the town is safer with her alive versus keeping the villain alive? Or what if Hook sees Emma cornered by that big bad, but can only stop them by using his sword? Is Hook shifted back into the villain column because he killed the bad guy who was about to kill Emma? Would Belle be considered a villain if one day she realizes Rumple's villainous plan and the only way to stop him is to kill him? Is Charming allowed to shoot a big bad who's trying to murder baby Neal? Where do we draw the line? (although, fate should probably be killing more of these villains. I could go for a good falling to their death trope for the next villain death) This I would be cool with. More villains should get some comeuppance for something they orchestrated themselves. (They kind of went there with the Snow Queen, but she recognized the error of her ways and the audience was supposed to feel sad for her. I want a villain where their ultimate doomsday device/plan backfires and ends up stopping them for good.) 2 Link to comment
Camera One December 30, 2014 Share December 30, 2014 (edited) (although, fate should probably be killing more of these villains. I could go for a good falling to their death trope for the next villain death) And the writers know how to do it too. In the Wonderland show, I liked how Jafar basically defeated himself by trying to steal the magical waters from the Well and got punished for trying to mess with the Fates. Now, that was satisfying AND it made the heroes seem smart because they kinda tricked him into it. Whereas on the parent show, the actual heroes stand around doing nothing after all their plans fail and someone else comes in and defeats the villain. Edited December 30, 2014 by Camera One 1 Link to comment
KingOfHearts December 30, 2014 Share December 30, 2014 (edited) The dwarves intended on killing the Evil Queen though, and the lizard intended on killing Mother Gothel. The morals don't change. Attempted killing is still killing in my book.I'm fine with the heroes avoiding killing as much as possible, but simply stating "heroes don't kill" is oversimplifying. It's just not that black and white. To me, killing in self-defense is not murder. Killing because you're angry and its convenient is. The phrase really should be "heroes don't murder for fun." As Gandalf says, "True courage is knowing not when to take a life, but when to spare one." Edited December 30, 2014 by KingOfHearts 3 Link to comment
kili December 30, 2014 Share December 30, 2014 (edited) I want a villain where their ultimate doomsday device/plan backfires and ends up stopping them for good. I would like that very much. "Hoisted on their on petard" has a long literary pedigree and is awfully fun to witness. Or what if Hook sees Emma cornered by that big bad, but can only stop them by using his sword? Is Hook shifted back into the villain column because he killed the bad guy who was about to kill Emma? It's interesting that A&E are such big fans of Star Wars and the Big Bad in the series is redeemed by just such actions. Darth Vadar even eschews his Jedi powers to do it. The Emperor is in the process of murdering Darth's son and Darth picks him up and tosses him down a bottomless pit. I would also like to see a villain die not due to magic. Pan comes pretty close when he is stabbed by the magical dagger. Maybe Sleepy can drive over the next villain - at least a mini-villain. Then we can get a shocking death, nobody feels all that bad about it and Sleepy can have his driver's license revoked before he kills somebody he shouldn't (it was pretty funny, but his Brother dwarfs really need to make sure he doesn't drive anymore if he won't stop himself - speaking of morals). Is Charming allowed to shoot a big bad who's trying to murder baby Neal? I'm still baffled that there were no mixed feelings about shooting, stabbing and zapping the winged-monkeys. While I agree that they had to be stopped from kidnapping Henry, one would think that the heroes would have some mixed feelings knowing that those monkeys were the robotic slave versions of their friends. If you can have mixed feelings about killing a determined psycho killer like Cora, surely you should spare a thought for those under a magical curse (Travis had to kill Old Yeller, but it was made abundantly clear he hated having to do it). Only Robin seemed to care (and he was probably only given that line so that viewers would be reminded about the monkeys and understand when one became Little John). Edited December 30, 2014 by kili 2 Link to comment
Shanna Marie December 30, 2014 Share December 30, 2014 Personally, even as an adult, I actually have no problem watching children's movies devoid of sex and violence as long as the plot is engaging, and I think it is possible to have deep character exploration without necessarily delving into sex and violence. Yes! This is a reason I read a lot of young adult fiction (though there's getting to be more sex and violence in that these days). Oddly, sometimes the addition of "adult" content ends up making something more juvenile. Torchwood was supposed to be a more adult sibling of Doctor Who, but I found that this just meant the addition of naughty words and sex while the supposed "children's" show delved deeper into moral and philosophical issues. Or there's the "you're watching HBO!" factor, where the Saturday Night Live sketch about the 13-year-old adviser to Game of Thrones who kept demanding more boobies is almost too true to be funny. I think that a lot of the movies made during the days of the really restrictive production code were far sexier than a lot of today's R-rated fare because they had to get far more creative to generate sexual tension when they couldn't just show naked bodies writhing, and as a bonus that meant that other stuff was happening in those scenes while the subtext was being carried out (then again, I'm not a huge fan of sex scenes in general, as to me it's like watching someone else eat chocolate -- I'm sure it's lovely for the characters and I'm a big fan of chocolate, but watching doesn't do much for me). I mentioned in the relationships thread that these writers treat relationships like a small child with her Barbie and Ken dolls, just smashing their faces together and making kissing noises because she doesn't yet understand what a relationship really entails. I'd rather spend the limited screen time on talking and other interactions and just assume I can figure out what happens when they're alone at night. Complex morality that appreciates nuances is fine, but they do pretty much fail there. I brought up in the spoilers thread that they don't seem to appreciate the distinction between "justice" and "revenge," where doing anything to someone you're mad at, whether or not it's for a good reason, gets classified as revenge, and because of that, the regular cast villains get to skate. That's how we get it somehow being a good deed when Snow let Regina go, even though she'd apparently had an actual trial and been sentenced to death for crimes that would pretty much guarantee a death penalty almost anywhere (conspiracy to commit regicide, attempted regicide, usurpation, war crimes, slaughtering civilians, killing children, etc.), even though she presented an ongoing threat, and even though she was almost impossible to contain in a way that kept her from being an ongoing threat. Because of this action, Regina was free to do goodness knows how much more harm, including casting the curse that disrupted the lives of everyone in the kingdom. And yet, Regina was still shown -- in the very same episode -- as being justified in still having a grudge against Snow in the present. And then it's somehow tainted as revenge and a bad thing when Snow kills the woman who murdered her mother and her nurse even though it was for a greater good, saved a life, and probably prevented hundreds of deaths. That's not "complex" morality. It's different rules applied to different characters. The way Hook went about his revenge on Rumple was bad because he didn't have a problem with collateral damage, but was wanting to get back at Rumple such a bad thing? Rumple probably couldn't be held accountable in any court of law, and he did commit murder and assault with bodily harm. It was bad for Hook's soul to focus on it to the extent that he did, but if Rumple had been just an arc villain and Hook had come to town looking for the man who murdered his love and maimed him, would they have rallied around Rumple and come up with an extraordinary way to save his life, or would they have helped Hook? And what about now? Rumple presents an ongoing threat, his history suggests that Belle is in danger since Rumple doesn't deal well with his wives defying him, and while the hat is still around Hook will always be in danger. Would it be revenge or justice if Hook goes after Rumple now? 1 Link to comment
kili December 30, 2014 Share December 30, 2014 Would it be revenge or justice if Hook goes after Rumple now? There is often a very fine line between revenge and justice. One of the primary differences seems to be with the seeker. Revenge does seem to focus one on the negative and leave one in a state of stasis. It leads one to a dark place and doesn't allow one to move on. That is why some families of victims choose the relatively more mentally healthy option of forgiveness and/or moving on - leaving justice to the system. Justice as the concept of revenge removed. It tries to apply process and non-cruel punishment (true revenge would be to cut off Rumple's hand and then crush his heart, but modern day justice would not do that). Hook returning to revenge is not healthy for him. He became too focused, hurt others and stopped living. It would be healthier to seek justice with the help of his Sheriff Girlfriend and his Sheriff Best Friend. That gives him a support network and people to keep him on an even keel. Best yet would be to focus on undoing the harm he was forced to collaborate with (although he had no choice in the matter, it seemed to bother him that he was complicit) and to seek for a way to protect the town from Rumple (something he expressed as his dying wish). His best revenge is living well. We've seen time and time again that those who seek revenge or to correct past problems end up unhappy and alone (Regina seeking revenge on Snow, Zelena seeking to undo the wrong of being abandoned as a child, Hook seeking revenge on Rumple). Meanwhile, those who concentrate on what they have are happier. Snow, Charming and Emma certainly have a good case for revenge against a number of people, but they are happier without it. It irks me that they never seek any justice, but I can't argue with them having the healthier approach on this show. Happiness isn't a reward for being good (Regina). It is a result of deciding to look at the bright side of life. Focus on what you have and not what you do not. That seems to have been one of the more consistent underlying message in this show, but this entire "Author" arc is threatening to derail that. Besides all that, I do think that the show tends to see actions against the main characters to be more evil than actions against guest actors. If Rumple had been a villain-of-the-half-season, his actions would have justified his killing at the end of the half-season. Greg/Owen did have a very legitimate beef with Regina and his crimes were certainly less than hers to him, but his death was treated as deserved. I believe that the only person the Snow Queen killed was her sister and that was by accident. Surely, she is less deserving to die than Rumple? I applaud Belle for forcing Rumple out of the town into Powerless Land. She is one of the few who recognized that even if you love somebody, you can't use it as an excuse to turn a blind eye to the danger they apply to others. It is great to support the ones you love, but at some point, you have to stop enabling them. Was it more moral for Snow to spare Regina's life in the Enchanted Forest and allow her to continue killing others or to have let Regina be executed? 1 Link to comment
Actionmage December 31, 2014 Share December 31, 2014 Was it more moral for Snow to spare Regina's life in the Enchanted Forest and allow her to continue killing others or to have let Regina be executed? In the Enchanted Forest, maybe it was moral. I personally 'WTF?!'ed and rolled my eyes, due to Regina "No Regrets" Mills' usual stand. The more questionable, to me, moment was when there was an attempt to stop The Wraith from taking Regina's soul/killing her. It can be argued that lots of evil could have been prevented if Regina had been contained in that manner. Still, lots of reactions from stuff Regina set in motion might not have been stopped as effectively. Rumple actively gives no effs about anyone but Belle or Bae (when he was alive.) Blue had been set up as ineffective or barely helpful. Emma was the only person with innate magic and she wouldn't have found that out if she hadn't had her Team Princess adventure. Pan would still happen, but we would be minus the No Regrets Tree and no magic shielding of Henry's heart. Also, seemingly no one to save Storybrooke from Pan's spell. Would Zelena have even dropped by if Regina were effectively powerless? Or would she have decided to go ahead and get revenge on the sister who supposedly stole everything Zelina was "supposed" to have? With the chance of re-souling Regina, the audience could have had a small( ish?) break from her and then been open to the possibility of a redemption. Yet, we, the audience, were treated to what we were. (Not all bad or I'd have bailed.) Debate about re-souling Regina could have been interesting, seeing who came down on what side. Folks who actually looked for Regina's soul could be an interesting adventure as well. On-going debate about the price of retrieving her soul versus her crimes as the Wraith-hunt went along. That kind of mix- adventure, humor, philosophy, swashbuckling- is stuff that grabs me. Maybe a former peasant can find out about the Snow negation after the court ruling and get in her face. A&E like making Snow the goat, so that would be easy for them to write. Yet, maybe we can get Snow actually thinking about how long you can go on forgiving someone who doesn't care about you and has continued to actively annihilate you and your family, except your grandson. I doubt we'd get the latter, but I also doubt we'd get the former, either, due to only Regina gets to rip strips off Snow. Link to comment
Shanna Marie December 31, 2014 Share December 31, 2014 There is often a very fine line between revenge and justice. One of the primary differences seems to be with the seeker. Revenge does seem to focus one on the negative and leave one in a state of stasis. It leads one to a dark place and doesn't allow one to move on. That makes sense. The same actions can be justice or revenge, depending on what's in the heart of the person doing them -- motivation matters. If Hook goes after Rumple because he's angry about what Rumple did to him and wants to make him pay, that would be revenge, and it would be bad for Hook. But if his motive is stopping Rumple from being able to hurt Belle, Emma, and the rest of the town and generally ending the Dark One, that's a motivation that shouldn't damage his heart. But the lack of justice on this show is one of my main issues because it makes the show so much less satisfying. One of the nice things about fairy tales and the reason they give you hope is that they're about deserving people being rewarded and the evil being punished. I don't necessarily need the full-on Grimm version in which Cinderella's stepsisters get their eyes pecked out by birds (I'm rather fond of the Ever After version in which one of the stepsisters is almost as bullied as Cinderella by the mother and other sister and ends up being redeemed and siding with Cinderella while the stepmother and other stepsister end up working in the palace laundry), but I do like the bad guys to get a comeuppance. The hoist on their own petard solution in which they end up getting caught in their own trap or otherwise engineer their own downfall by reaching too far is particularly satisfying. I'm even a big fan of redemption stories, but it needs to be a true redemption in which the villain recognizes and admits the error of their ways and then actually feels bad about it and tries to atone. They actually did have Regina hoist on her own petard in the breaking of the initial curse, since Emma was leaving town and letting Regina win. But Regina couldn't even deal with the fact that Emma existed and might have any hold on Henry, so she got the cursed apple, baked the turnover, and then Henry intervened, and Emma's kiss broke the curse. Emma wasn't even trying to break the curse or defeat Regina. She was just saying goodbye to her son, who was harmed by Regina's actions. That moment when Regina realizes what the curse breaking means and when Mother Superior/Blue suggests she run is one of my favorites in the whole show. But since then it's been all downhill because there's been no justice. Regina isn't truly redeemed because she's never admitted that she was wrong. But she also hasn't really suffered for her crimes. No one's allowed to be angry at her, her victims beg to be her friends, her victims apologize to her for much more minor wrongs without her having said a word of apology to them, her victims try to help her and make her feel better while she's mean and snarky to them. She hasn't lost anything -- Henry's totally okay with her in spite of the emotional abuse and her trying to kill him, she still has her home, and she willingly gave up being mayor (after one brief moment of being driven out of office earlier). In the Enchanted Forest she's still queen even though she's a usurper and Snow should be the rightful queen. She has things not work out with one boyfriend and she's feeling totally robbed by life. At least Rumple lost his son and temporarily lost his life and has now been banished from town. That may have been why Belle kicking him across the town line even as he groveled was so satisfying. Finally, a villain on this show was getting some kind of justice. I'm sure it'll all be undone soon enough. The defeats of most of the other villains haven't even had that satisfying justice feel. Cora did, but they soured that with the dark heart nonsense. I guess Pan got what he had coming from his own son. I would have been okay with Zelena just being stripped of her powers, so it actually seemed unjust that she was killed, and it was injustice that Ingrid had to die even after being redeemed. 6 Link to comment
myril December 31, 2014 Share December 31, 2014 (edited) That's not "complex" morality. It's different rules applied to different characters. You can kill thousands of people and often enough a lot of people will care a lot less about it, though might ask in a rational way for justice (whatever they define as such), but if you kill a person they love, or you are somehow involved in it, they will hate you fervently and call for revenge (while maybe claiming it to be justice). There is a difference in reaction, if people connect emotionally or just rationally, and that is no different for audience. It maybe even a fascinating thing how well it works with this show, with characters like Regina and Rumple, fascinating for psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists that is. Add the magic factor, as some have pointed out, it might play a role, that magic was used, and it explain, why some find Hook more terrible than Regina or Rumple. Hook's wrong doings are more familiar, more in the line of what people do in real world, closer to what people might have experienced, so it's less easy to be dismissed. This show goes overboard if it comes to create sympathy for core cast villains, giving a nice, though I suspect unintended example how morality can get screwed up, on screen and in the audience, when we see the story behind the villain, when they are some good looking, attractive people, people with (seemingly) feelings and family, misunderstood and mistreated at some point maybe, having suffered losses, people we know or get to know better over time. Yes, they made bad choices, but they still deserve forgiveness and love, they are just human beings no monsters, are they - or that is how a lot of people seem to see it. Agree with that they are still human beings, but that shouldn't keep us from seeing the evil they did and do as what it is: evil. It is ambiguous, that we tend to talk of monsters if we talk of serial killers, mass murders, atrocious war crimes, genocide. The mind-boggling thing is, that those doing such terrible things might eventually be psychopath, but still they are human beings, with family and friends even, living often enough in the very middle of society and not necessarily at its fringes. We will more likely accuse and hunt down the strange though, the "wolf in the woods", the seemingly monster, than suspect our neighbor, who we have a friendly chat once in while with and see frequently being so helpful to that old lady next door, or the well respected deputy of town hall administration, who is an arrogant pain in the butt but likes to buys drinks for his club mates and has such lovely two kids, bit shy, but lovely. That is quite simple because we believe to know these people, while the "wolf in the woods" is different and mostly unfamiliar to us. If the wolf is the killer though, it's right to bring him or her to trial. Being misunderstood and a stranger, different, eventually bullied by the majority, doesn't mean you can't be hold to the same basic rules. And whatever terrible have been done in your past to you, it never ever justificies doing terrible things to people yourself. Being able to explain something, understand how someone got where they are now, shouldn't equal automatically justification and certainly not redemption. Civilization means in my view overcoming eye-to-eye ideas of justice. Would it be revenge or justice if Hook goes after Rumple now? Regardless the ongoing threat, Hook going himself, all on his own after Rumple would still be IMO a lot about revenge and at best a personal call, but not justice. Aside that Hook himself is directly or indirectly quite personal affected, he would be investigator, judge, jury, executioner in one person - and that is enough to negate it being justice, at least in my books. Going after Rumple and killing him might be justifiable, but justifiable and being justice are not necessarily one and the same thing. Edited December 31, 2014 by katusch 1 Link to comment
Faemonic December 31, 2014 Share December 31, 2014 (edited) Would it be revenge or justice if Hook goes after Rumple now? Depends on how much either of them understand. I think understanding is the thing. How can a mass-murderer balance the scales if they can't bring anybody back to life, and can only sacrifice their own life once? Not possible. They either understand what the value or life is and stop themselves, or have to be stopped by execution by people who do have a perspective on the matter that considers, truly considers, those who are affected by this crime. Snow's understanding...or "understanding"...can come off as very strange, then. How can she value every life if one of those lives is dedicated to the destruction of her own life and others as collateral damage? It's as immature an understanding of the world as "being tolerant of intolerance", which, well, I must admit is a philosophy that did have me caught for a long while. When that happens, I think this philosophical position very quickly creates a world around a person where there's only ever the lesser of two evils for one's own conscience to choose. A more mature understanding, maybe in some cases it needs to be as mature as omniscience, can empower a person with all the stamina and clarity to create better options, some good and right choices. Snow bypassing Regina's sentence could have come off as that, but didn't. That's the thing about fairy tales since, I would guess, Perrault. There's definitely good and there's definitely evil, but it's told and not shown, or it's shown but not understood. The long-suffering abused princess who shows mercy after her rise to fortune and glory could be empowered by understanding, or disempowered by some internalized martyr complex. So...Hook. Vengeance!Hook didn't understand that Baelfire still loved Rumplestiltskin (forgiving his Papa on his deathbed) and that Rumple had it in him to do the brave thing and lose a war to a miniature ogre to protect Big Bae and Milah v.2.0., basically redemption. Killing Rumple wouldn't bring Milah back, and it wasn't as if Hook had dedicated himself to protecting women from domestic violence in honor of Milah's memory. He hit a shackled, isolated Belle unconscious and shot her in the back. However annoying an enabler Belle was, it doesn't look good for Hook. The idea that Milah didn't matter and deserved her horrible death somehow is just an idea that Belle evidently supported, but could Hook justifiably fight an idea by targeting its embodied champions? I vote no. Vengifiably, maybe, but that's not a word. Still, that's the way of it when both Hook and Belle had their personal issues. Nobody understood anyone else, which is natural and realistic. Is that unfair? I just think it's tragic, and makes for great and relatable entertainment. To Hook's transition, it reminds me of this quote I forgot who said, but it went, "Frightful things must happen until humanity grows ripe. But anything else will not ripen humanity." Having been on the receiving end of some frightful things, of course I want to call codswallop...but it's very applicable to Hook. He had to believe that Rumple was dead, that he'd murdered him with his own hook, so that Hook could sit in that locker and feel what that was like. I gather that it had been less satisfying than Hook had smarmed to Greg and Tamara, because, as I've read, there's no replacement for the grieving process. Injustice and violation often bring about emotional reactions for which blame and vengeance are commonly included. I'm sort of iffy on this notion, "there's no replacement for the grieving process" frankly, because sometimes acting out is part of the grieving process, not exclusive to it. Besides, it's too convenient for perpetrators of injustice to tell the victims to shut up and sort it out on their own. An impact on the pressure-cooker of a world that caused such injustice to occur, oh, for instance executing Regina and defending yourself and your family against Cora...Snow...that can be very effective in changing the world for the better, actually! Was that vengeance? Maybe a little, hence that haunting line delivery: "You're right. This isn't me." When Snow gave into it. But I can't believe that made it unjust. Injustice can be a personal feeling, I guess, but considering that the role of morality is to ease the challenges of co-existence then justice also belongs to those other people affected--the collective co-existing, if you will, the co-existants. Now the hypothetical of Hook going after Rumple. Oh, no, sorry--I have another tangent. If they'd shown Rumple's struggles with memories of being Zelena's slave and watching his son die, then this would just be tragic. Rumple's acting out, gathering and hoarding as much security as he can get, and that's part of his grieving process. Why? Because murdering Zelena didn't make anything better! Rumple seems to know it but doesn't really understand what that means in the greater scheme of things. Rumple didn't have the Hook-in-the-locker-room moment. Rumple didn't have the turn-around-and-return-the-magic-bean-to-the-heroes moment. Was he given the same chances? I don't know. Rumple's power and isolation could have protected him from reality checks that Hook was evidently in up to his startlingly blue eyeballs*. Either way, people would continue to suffer Rumple's grieving process, just as Archie and Belle suffered Hook's grief. * In a strange way, yes, I am arguing that it isn't the same "chance" unless it suited both personalities well enough to have similar effects. I'm very fatalistic that way. There might not have been any moment where a bit of free will shines through that Rumple rejected when Hook accepted it. There's only personalities like natural disasters, against which it still makes sense to protect people against...Snow who interrupted Regina's execution...but blame is as much a part of that emotional meteorology as motivation for harm. I try to think of understanding as something transcendent, but blame can presume such a position and some efforts at understanding remain very well within the storm, such as Snow always wanting to be good but really only managing to be self-sacrificing. So. How much would Hook understand? That Belle grew a spine and set Rumple in exile, and that has got to sting coming from someone that the old coward had once been ready to die for--and did. That Emma's safe. That Storybrooke is safe. That maybe the convent and the apprentice can be unhatted? I don't know. Would Hook have the impulsiveness to go after Rumple to avenge the stars in the hat just in case they can't be unhatted? Does Hook love nuns and fairies that much? ...Oh gods was Tinkerbell hatted??? I would totally understand Hook snapping back into vengeance mode if he doesn't curl up in self-flagellating depression if Tinkerbell is in that hat, only because Hook doesn't have many friends. But now I think he would only think that the hat literally sucks but doesn't understand (is not attached to) its victims enough to be motivated to avenge them. This was your weather report for hurricane Hook. Would it be justice? As I said, had the show highlighted Rumple's internal struggles, then I would say no, no, no, it's just a tragedy and there is no such thing as justice. But...Rumple did gloat about all the awful things that he was doing. I too want to watch a story that ties up in some sort of justice, and vicariously through Hook is one way to go about this. In-show, though, that wouldn't be justice because it would affect too many other people. What, was Belle's decision to exile her own husband just not good enough for Hook? What about Regina, who was Rumple's mentee and vitriolic friend--she enjoys that Rumple's miserable, but she might not want him dead so does Hook get a free pass to affect Regina like that? Henry would see it as an interruption of Rumple's redemption, which, as with Snow, seems to be the worst thing that any human can do to another, worse than enslavement and trauma that can be hashed out more constructively if Hook still suffers it. Would Rumple's death undo the hatting? Would Rumple's death save the town from The Queens of Darkness? And...can Hook live with himself after for real killing Rumple? It seems that the show itself wants to push for understanding beyond vengeance or even beyond justice. It's not getting there, if Snow is meant to be shown to innately have it because it just comes off as a character weakness instead, but I appreciate that the creative team is trying. They're very trying. Edited December 31, 2014 by Faemonic 2 Link to comment
The Cake is a Pie December 31, 2014 Share December 31, 2014 For me, revenge vs. justice would boil down to one difference: is he going after Rumple on his own, or does he have the town's backing? It's "I" vs. "we". If he sneaks off on his own and tries to kill Rumple behind everyone's backs, then that's revenge. I hope he's done with that. He told Rumple before heading into Neverland that he was done trying to kill him. He's stuck to that promise, despite the blackmail. If however, the entire town decides Rumple is public enemy no. 1, and Hook has everyone's full support in going after him, then it would be justice. He would not be acting in his own interests (though they are aligned), he would be acting in the community's interest, to protect the town. Link to comment
Faemonic December 31, 2014 Share December 31, 2014 (edited) If however, the entire town decides Rumple is public enemy no. 1, and Hook has everyone's full support in going after him, then it would be justice. He would not be acting in his own interests (though they are aligned), he would be acting in the community's interest, to protect the town. I was with you up until that point. Angry mobs aren't usually a force of justice, so I think it's important how the whole town decided this. Edited December 31, 2014 by Faemonic 1 Link to comment
Camera One December 31, 2014 Share December 31, 2014 (edited) Having Granny be part of the mob to lynch Elsa after what Red went through was just so ridiculous and a travesty to the character. Of course, no one cares about Granny, but still... Edited December 31, 2014 by Camera One 6 Link to comment
Recommended Posts