The Storybrooke Daily Mirror: OUaT in the Media, Cons and Other Real Life Encounters

[Shanna Marie]

I'd have thought they'd have covered the scar for Lt. Jones, but considering that he was essentially a slave as a child, there are all kinds of ways he could have got the scar earlier (with his temper, without adult protection, in the kind of tough environment of ships and wharves, there's a good chance he took on a whole gang at some point), and he was at war as Lt. Jones, so he could have been wounded in combat -- slivers of wood splintered by a cannonball, shrapnel, etc. Since they've said they kept the scar uncovered on purpose, maybe someday we'll see the story behind it.

 

Although the apple motif is a thing for this show, it's starting to stretch things a bit when they use it with Hook.

[Serena]

Once is apparently TVLine's most covered show. It must bring in the clicks. Don't be surprised to see a few more fan-baity headlines there in the following months!

[sharky]

I would like extra coverage from there. Matt Mitovich is thankfully no NA.

[Dianthus]

JM once said that the make up artists over at BtVS actually whitened the scar across his eyebrow to highlight it. It certainly made sense for his character. They even gave it an origin story in the Spike-centric FFL.

Honestly, I hadn't even noticed CO'D's scar until someone here mentioned it. Much as I hate to think of a child in pain, the story behind the scar is kind of Awww-inspiring.

[Serena]

I read the People's Choice results and WTF? I cannot believe Favorite Sci-Fi show went to Beauty and the Beast. How is that even possible? 

[Writing Wrongs]

I recorded the show and fast forwarded through it. Did they not even show the categories Once was nominated in?

[sharky]

It's not about the people's choice. It's more a combination of who is available to be there and who pays how much to win.

[mjgchick]

BaTB has a huge fan base overseas. They win this every year. The CW wouldn't waste their money on that show.

[Serena]

More importantly, it's also produced by CBS. 

[Souris]

Once has cast a Gaston.

[Aliasscape]

Once has cast a Gaston.

Did they forget they already had one or is he just not available?

[Serena]

Adam says it's a recast. We don't know if it's because of availability or other issues.

The ABC TCA is today, right?

[KingOfHearts]

 

Adam says it's a recast.

I'm hoping it's like Robin Hood and Gaston is recurring, but I'm really rooting for anything that gums up the works for Rumpbelle. It would be hilarious if Gaston killed Rumple to save Belle, then Beauty and the Beast would come full-circle.

Edited January 9, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[sharky]

ABC TCA is today but Once isn't on the schedule. We may get some answers from the cocktail event with press but no formal Q&A

Edited January 9, 2016 by sharky

[Serena]

Yeah, I saw that it's just new midseason shows, as usual. But JMo appears to be in LA, so there's a higher than usual possibility that she may attend the party tonight.

[Free]

Once has cast a Gaston.

So either someone changed him back from when Rumple turned him into a rose or that's forgotten.

[mjgchick]

#TeamPrettyGaston

[Rumsy4]

It's a flashback appearance. Unless we see Gaston in the UW with his legs cut off. Morbid. :-p

[Serena]

Paul Lee says Once has "long and bright future". Minor spoilers in the article. Or maybe this should go in ratings/scheduling, since it implies that it'll be renewed?

[legaleagle53]

It's a flashback appearance. Unless we see Gaston in the UW with his legs cut off. Morbid. :-p

 

You are correct.  We're going to be flashing back to Belle's life before she even met Rumple, so this Gaston will be hale and hearty -- and fully anatomically intact.

[KingOfHearts]

 

It's a flashback appearance. Unless we see Gaston in the UW with his legs cut off. Morbid. :-p

I'm hopeful it might be more than that. Haven't that announced characters as flashback appearances only to give them a role in the present? (Sometimes in the same episode.) Perhaps it's just my imagination.

Edited January 10, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Souris]

Very interesting data about OnceABC's Twitter posts. Not surprisingly, Regina is the character who they post about the most consistently. I love it when facts belie the "OnceABC only tweets about Hook & CaptainSwan!" whining.

[Joanh23]

very interesting info on the official twitter posts.  I'm not surprised that Emma (9%) and Regina (10%) have the highest number of character based tweets.  But I am surprised that Hook, Zelena & Cruella are all on 5% - so much for Hook taking over!

[KAOS Agent]

I know so many people get all upset about Regina or Hook getting coverage from the main account, but what's truly sad in that analysis is where Snow falls on the promotion scale.

[whisper8]

Once Upon a Time” creators Adam Horowitz and Edward Kitsis answer our SwanQueen questions

[KingOfHearts]

Honestly, we don’t keep “shipping” in mind when we write any of our characters. It seems to be a common misconception from some fans that we approach the writing of the show from a relationship angle.

I had to stop reading after this load of BS. They think we're total idiots.

Edited January 12, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Serena]

They managed to use so many words to say so little.

[HoodlumSheep]

They managed to use so many words to say so little.

True talent.

Another interview where they avoid everything possible.

[Shanna Marie]

Either they don't watch their own show or this is a flat out lie.

Or are they in this case (since it's supposedly an interview about SwanQueen) simply saying that, no, none of that "subtext" that supposedly makes SwanQueen canon was at all deliberate, and they don't write to play that imaginary relationship out?

 

Besides, relationships also fall by the wayside in their quest for exciting twist moments. They write for the aha of the twist reveal, not for plot, character, or relationship.

[Mathius]

I had to stop reading after this load of BS. They think we're total idiots.

 

But they're absolutely right.  They don't write from a relationship angle.  If they did, things would probably be better.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Mathius

[KingOfHearts]

But they're absolutely right. They don't write from a relationship angle. If they did, things would probably be better.

They write like it is though. There's all this focus on romantic relationships that is total fan pandering. S1-3A was not like that.

Edited January 12, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Rumsy4]

They didn't want to admit that SQ was never their intention and is never going to happen in the Show. So, they said a load of BS about not writing for any romantic relationships. I don't see why it is so scary to admit canon and fanon pairings are separate things. So many showrunners do. They are going to get hate anyway. So might as well admit the truth than prevaricate. 

Edited January 12, 2016 by Rumsy4

[jaytee1812]

It could well be that the fan pandering is being forced on them from above.

[Curio]

This is just getting annoying now. Adam & Eddie need to admit that it's never going to happen romantically. Done. End of story. You don't need to write a multiple-paragraph Internet article about it. It's Season 5... I think most fans are smart enough to figure out the basic romantic pairings on this show by now.

[HoodlumSheep]

They didn't want to admit that SQ was never their intention and is never going to happen in the Show. So, they said a load of BS about not writing for any romantic relationships. I don't see why it is so scary to admit canon and fanon pairings are separate things. So many showrunners do. They are going to get hate anyway. So might as well admit the truth than prevaricate.

And I doubt a&e would completely denounce a certain ship while being interviewed by said site after said ship won their little tournament.

All a&e had to do was say something like it wasn't our intention/that's not the direction we're going, but we wish to continue develop the friendhip between them, and support and respect those who do ship them, etc. Or something like that. But apparently they must be worried about losing anymore viewers.

Edited January 12, 2016 by HoodlumSheep

[KingOfHearts]

 

This is just getting annoying now. Adam & Eddie need to admit that it's never going to happen romantically. Done. End of story. You don't need to write a multiple-paragraph Internet article about it. It's Season 5... I think most fans are smart enough to figure out the basic romantic pairings on this show by now.

They write stuff like 4x05 in the midst of shipper controversy, then they don't give a straight answer. That fuels the "Swan Queen must become canon" resolve, which in turn is making rabid shippers attack cast and crew for not living up to what they're baiting. It's a vicious cycle and A&E don't realize that they can't please everyone by being ambiguous. (Especially when you're feigning it.)

[Rumsy4]

But apparently they must be worried about losing anymore viewers.

 

Lbr, the loss of no single shipper faction is going to net a huge loss to the network. Many SQ fans in particular seem to livestream the show than watch it through legitimate means. Most regular viewers don't even know people ship SQ or even what shipping means. 

Edited January 12, 2016 by Rumsy4

[YaddaYadda]

I didn't even know SQ was a thing until I started reading message boards. 

[jaytee1812]

I didn't even know SQ was a thing until I started reading message boards.

I first heard about them when one of the seven dwarves insulted them on Twitter.

[mjgchick]

They write stuff like 4x05 in the midst of shipper controversy, then they don't give a straight answer. That fuels the "Swan Queen must become canon" resolve, which in turn is making rabid shippers attack cast and crew for not living up to what they're baiting. It's a vicious cycle and A&E don't realize that they can't please everyone by being ambiguous. (Especially when you're feigning it.)

Would an episode where one character is verbally abusive towards the lead be a good example of giving shippers what they want though? Or maybe they really do think the audience is low in the IQ department.

I didn't know about Swan Queen until that terrible episode 4x05.

Edited January 13, 2016 by mjgchick

[Souris]

That interview was clearly done via email, and A&E's joint answers were clearly crafted to be as benign and vague and unoffensive to anyone as possible. As somebody said above, a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.

[Camera One]

This quote from them was hilarious:

 

We never created “Swan Queen” or “Snowing” or “Rumbelle” or “Captain Swan” or any of the ships, subtextual or not—our fans took our stories and ran with them.

 

They never wrote Rumple and Belle, or Emma and Hook being romantically attracted to each other, and fans just "ran with them"?  Riiight.  That alone was blatant pandering to the readership of that article.

[KingOfHearts]

 

They never wrote Rumple and Belle, or Emma and Hook being romantically attracted to each other, and fans just "ran with them"?  Riiight.  That alone was blatant pandering to the readership of that article.

Don'cha know? Snowing wasn't originally supposed to be canon. Fans just interpreted the TLK, wedding, and child together as a subtextual romance.

 

This is A&E's long version of, "Don't blame us for the negative implications of shipping!"

Edited January 14, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[FierceAfroChick]

So in that one DVD commentary with JMo, Kitsis or Horowitz were lying when they said they had hoped that Colin and JMo would have chemistry?  That’s not intentionally writing a ship?

[Shanna Marie]

Would an episode where one character is verbally abusive towards the lead be a good example of giving shippers what they want though?

It is if then the other character chases after that character, groveling and begging to be friends. That then shows how much Emma loves Regina and puts Emma in her rightful place, dontchaknow.

 

That interview was basically a media relations no-win scenario. How do you do an interview in conjunction with winning an award for something you aren't actually doing, that doesn't actually exist, whose proponents harass you and the people you work with, and do so without insulting the audience you're talking to? The easy way out would have been to be "busy" and just not do it, but then not everyone who reads that site is a rabid Swan Queen shipper, and most of the people who voted in the poll were probably not regular readers of the site and just piled on there to support their 'ship, so it's possible that the interview could actually be good PR for the show. But then you do you talk about the main topic when it's something only in the imagination of some viewers? "Gee, it's a real honor to win the best relationship thing, but you do realize it's not something that's actually on the show, right? Like, we didn't put in any of that subtext you think you see."

[Souris]

That esteemed journalist Natalie Abrams has put out a Twitter call for spoiler questions for A&E.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Souris

[Dianthus]

I have no SwanQueen questions. I've got zero f*cks to give about SQ.

[KingOfHearts]

http://abc.go.com/shows/once-upon-a-time/news/storybook/once-upon-a-time-binge-watch-full-episodes-online-for-free-11252015

 

ABC has the last five episodes available to watch for free (with ads) on their website.

[Camera One]

Challenge: Get someone who quit or someone who has never seen the show before to watch all 5 episodes.

[Serena]

I think Leanne is hinting that there's gonna be a red carpet for Once's 100th episode.