S06.E03: The Other Shoe

[Shanna Marie]

I'm not sure I can buy that Ella should have known her stepmother was capable of murder, especially when it involved a daughter she gave every sign of loving and had spoiled rotten. But even if she had the slightest inkling that it was possible, I don't know that she owed Clorinda anything. She was utterly surprised by Clorinda's confession of only just going along with her mother to protect herself, so it's not as though Clorinda had ever shown her any kindness, even in secret. Clorinda joined in on the abuse of Ella for years. She was the one who burned the dress and who coined the "Cinderella" name. Yeah, she was doing that to protect herself at Ella's expense, but then that was what Ella was doing when she told about where Clorinda was going, protecting herself at Clorinda's expense. I can't believe that Ella protecting herself at the expense of someone who'd abused her for years is worse than Clorinda protecting herself at the expense of someone who had done her no harm. That doesn't make Ella the wicked one and doesn't give Clorinda grounds to hold a grudge or be willing to play along with the stepmother to help Ella be killed. It wasn't Ella's finest moment, true, but I can't really fault Ella for being desperate and scared enough to not be willing to potentially give up her chance at happiness in order to protect a stepsister who'd just confessed to having gone along with the abuse without really meaning it but who hadn't otherwise done anything to help her. "I didn't really mean it when I was tormenting you, but I was just doing it to make my life easier so my mother wouldn't torment me" doesn't really undo all the harm she'd done.

[Noneofyourbusiness]

Not owed to Clorinda, maybe, but Jacob was an innocent (as far as we and Ella know). In any case, when Ella calls herself the "wicked" sister for what she did, it's in hindsight knowing what did happen and what almost happened to Jacob, so of course she feels terribly guilty.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Noneofyourbusiness

[Curio]

I finally got to watch this episode after a week of busy international travel. While this was definitely a huge improvement over the first two episodes, I'm still not going to say I super loved it because of the plot holes everyone already mentioned. (Why was Clorinda faking her injury? What did faking the injury do to benefit the situation? It just seemed so random.) Even the big moments, like Emma finally asking Hook to move in, seemed to not have as big of an impact on me because that moment should have happened in Season 5 for it to have any significant meaning. Don't get me wrong, that scene was great, but it would have been better placed at the end of the Season 5 finale, not three random episodes into Season 6. Instead of me going, "Awww," it was more like, "Freaking finally. It's about time."

You all discussed everything I was going to mention already, but I will say this—what is with this show's warped morality and justice? Seeing Lady Tremaine in the orange jumpsuit is exactly the kind of punishment I've been wanting to see the writers give Regina or Rumple for years now. Why is it that only non-magical villains get put in jail or given community service? And Snow, there's such a thing as a cold case. Now that new evidence has surfaced, David wanting to figure out what happened to his father isn't vengeance, it's justice. But any time a hero wants to see justice for a crime done against them on this show, it's apparently a bad thing.

The main annoying thing about David's father's death is that—as @Shanna Marie would say—it seems like David read future scripts and knows his father's killer is still alive and living in Storybrooke. It's not organic storytelling. David's father was killed when he was 6 years old, and when you take into account all the curses that have happened, that death happened decades ago. Let's assume David's father was around his mid- to late-thirties when he died. Unless the killer was younger than David's father at the time, we're looking at the killer probably being around their 60s or older at this point. (And that's assuming they were brought over with the curse. If they weren't brought over with the curse, they'd probably be in a nursing home.) This is also assuming the killer is even alive anymore and happened to be brought over with a curse or happened to be lucky enough to find a key to the Land of Untold Stories. What does David expect to do to that person now? Put them in jail? Why not put Regina, Rumple, Zelena, and Hook in jail for their crimes as well? Regina killed Snow's father, but she's not in jail. Rumple killed Henry's grandma, but he's not in jail. Everyone claims Zelena killed Neal (even though Neal killed himself), but she's not in jail. If the killer doesn't live in Storybrooke, is David willing to travel through a portal to find this person? At that point, yes, that's getting more into Snow's definition of vengeance. David isn't a writer's favorite—if he's getting this much screen time devoted to his father's death, it's going to mean something significant further on and will probably be tied to one of the main characters. Now, Regina and Zelena probably aren't suspects because they would have been young teenagers at the time of the death. (I'm assuming Regina and Zelena are about a decade older than Snow and David.) It seems unlikely the show is going to have David track down some random guy in his 60s or 70s, so that leaves the two ageless guys in the cast as the main suspects: Rumple and Hook. If Rumple is the killer, big whoop. David would probably be upset at him, but since Rumple is a Dark One, the most that argument will amount to is, "You bastard. But I guess I should have seen this coming. I won't put you in jail since you're ultra powerful, so good day." That leaves Hook.

Spoiler

And with David's over-the-top reaction to Hook moving in with Emma next episode, it's like a neon sign that Hook was involved with the death.

Oh, and I totally agree that it's weird message to send that it's better to have a father alive than dead. Sometimes it's better for a father not to be around, and that conversation between Belle and David was a clunky way to explain why Belle will eventually get back together with Rumple.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Curio

[Shanna Marie]

4 hours ago, Curio said:

The main annoying thing about David's father's death is that—as @Shanna Marie would say—it seems like David read future scripts and knows his father's killer is still alive and living in Storybrooke.

On this one thing, I actually kind of give them a pass because I figure that even David might realize that if the Evil Queen is bothering to tell him about this, it probably means that the killer is alive and in Storybrooke. Otherwise, what would the point be? Unless, I guess, she just figures that he'll take it that way and will tear himself up with investigation and suspicion, and she actually has no idea who the killer is.

You do have to wonder how and why Rumple has a record of the stabbing and yet the dead man's family only learned of the cart accident. That suggests an official cover-up of some sort. Since the smart money's on Hook as the culprit (if we're looking at people who were alive and adults then, present in Storybrooke now, and who would have an emotional and relationship impact), why would anyone bother to cover up the murder of a random peasant by a random pirate? Or, really, why would they bother to cover up anything about the murder of a random peasant? The only culprit I can think of that might give a reason for a cover-up would be George -- Daddy Shepherd may have been blabbing about the son he sold to the king, so the king had him killed, and of course that would be covered up.

4 hours ago, Curio said:

I totally agree that it's weird message to send that it's better to have a father alive than dead. Sometimes it's better for a father not to be around, and that conversation between Belle and David was a clunky way to explain why Belle will eventually get back together with Rumple.

Belle needs to have a chat with Hook about this, who probably not only has his own perspective on the role of a father in a son's life, but who had at least a century to hear what Rumple's first son had to say about his father. Even without talking to Hook, Belle might want to remember that Rumple's first son went through a portal into a strange world just to get away from his father being the Dark One and stayed away, doing everything he could to avoid being around his father again.

[Curio]

Quote

Belle needs to have a chat with Hook about this, who probably not only has his own perspective on the role of a father in a son's life, but who had at least a century to hear what Rumple's first son had to say about his father. Even without talking to Hook, Belle might want to remember that Rumple's first son went through a portal into a strange world just to get away from his father being the Dark One and stayed away, doing everything he could to avoid being around his father again.

 

Yes, Belle needs to talk to Hook more. Or Belle could talk to Zelena about her abusive father. Or she could talk to Regina about how much better it would have been if Henry Sr. had divorced Cora. There are plenty examples on this show where the biological parent isn't necessarily the best parent, and also plenty of examples where the children who didn't have parents growing up turned into selfless heroes as adults.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Curio

[KingOfHearts]

I thought this episode was too unoriginal. There just seemed to be so many other ways to do it. It would have had more impact if Ella screwed Clorinda over in desperation by some other method. (Like cockblocking her from Thomas at the ball or something.) Not that I wanted to see Ella be dark, but her being manipulated by Lady Tremaine was just done before. I liked Lady Tremaine, but that's probably because she was Cora Lite.

Clorinda needed more development. Her love story was random and her being the "good one" wasn't all that true. 

Edited October 20, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

I liked Lady Tremaine because she embodied the evil cold animated version of the character.  The way she talked was much scarier than Cora.  Her remarks were also much sharper and meaner, dripping with condescension, even moreso than Barbara Hershey.  

I do agree that the plot was lifted straight from "The Stable Boy", right down to a stable, which was unoriginal to stay the least.  

[Shanna Marie]

Aside from the retread of "The Stable Boy" (as mentioned above), this episode comes closer to being what I'd have expected of the concept of "untold stories," with the characters from known stories whose stories were untold -- secondary characters, people behind the scenes, etc. There's a wealth of that in fairy tales and classic literature, and they could have had so much fun with that because there's a lot more latitude. Why butcher (and mostly ignore) the main character of a classic story so that their version has almost nothing to do with the original (Monte Cristo) when they can play with the background characters and do anything they want with them?

I know they ended up ignoring all the hints they dropped that Anastasia from the Wonderland spinoff was one of Cinderella's stepsisters, and since they never outright said she was, I guess this isn't necessarily a retcon, but didn't they say something in season one about Ashley living with her stepfamily? She couldn't have been, if her stepsister and stepmother were in another land. Did Regina curse her into an entirely different stepfamily? 

This Lady Tremaine was absolutely wonderful. I don't know if there's enough story to the character for her to have been an arc villain, but it would have been great if they could have kept her around as an ongoing irritant antagonist -- not really a threat, but stirring things up.

It's a pity they didn't give Emma more comedy-related storylines because JMo does some good physical humor. I love the way she was so agitated in Archie's office and just flopped over the back of the couch to lie down. Funny how Emma's complaint that barely gets addressed is about how she has to dedicate herself to helping other people get their happy endings but doesn't get one of her own, while Regina's complaint that has everyone rushing around to help her and that set off this whole Evil Queen plot is that she hates not murdering people and is sad because not murdering people doesn't guarantee her a happy life.

[Melgaypet]

11 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

I know they ended up ignoring all the hints they dropped that Anastasia from the Wonderland spinoff was one of Cinderella's stepsisters, and since they never outright said she was, I guess this isn't necessarily a retcon, but didn't they say something in season one about Ashley living with her stepfamily? She couldn't have been, if her stepsister and stepmother were in another land. Did Regina curse her into an entirely different stepfamily? 

What I remember is Henry (or someone) telling Emma that Ashley had a stepmother and two stepsisters she "didn't talk to." So, no, not living with them. That does imply the stepfamily was in Storybrooke at the time, but, like you say with Anastasia, doesn't outright say so.

[Shanna Marie]

1 hour ago, Melgaypet said:

What I remember is Henry (or someone) telling Emma that Ashley had a stepmother and two stepsisters she "didn't talk to." So, no, not living with them. That does imply the stepfamily was in Storybrooke at the time, but, like you say with Anastasia, doesn't outright say so.

Okay, I'll sort of give them this because her not talking to them could even imply that they were in another city, like Ashley had fake memories of growing up somewhere else and running away from home to Storybrooke, where she got by working as a hotel maid, and in reality, "another city" was the Land of Untold Stories.

Though I liked the version where Anastasia was a stepsister better because it was interesting imagining one of the stepsisters going on to have her own story (instead of just a rehash of "The Stable Boy"). Plus, I think hers was a better redemption. The "I wasn't really being mean, I was just protecting myself by being mean to you all this time without so much as a single word of kindness to you behind my mother's back, so I'm actually good and that means it was evil of you to rat me out" thing is rather unsatisfying. I liked the idea that Ana really was selfish and shallow and awful, but ended up having a true redemption after going through a lot. I don't think that standing by while someone else is abused while not agreeing with the abuse is enough to redeem one of the stepsisters.

[andromeda331]

15 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

Okay, I'll sort of give them this because her not talking to them could even imply that they were in another city, like Ashley had fake memories of growing up somewhere else and running away from home to Storybrooke, where she got by working as a hotel maid, and in reality, "another city" was the Land of Untold Stories.

Though I liked the version where Anastasia was a stepsister better because it was interesting imagining one of the stepsisters going on to have her own story (instead of just a rehash of "The Stable Boy"). Plus, I think hers was a better redemption. The "I wasn't really being mean, I was just protecting myself by being mean to you all this time without so much as a single word of kindness to you behind my mother's back, so I'm actually good and that means it was evil of you to rat me out" thing is rather unsatisfying. I liked the idea that Ana really was selfish and shallow and awful, but ended up having a true redemption after going through a lot. I don't think that standing by while someone else is abused while not agreeing with the abuse is enough to redeem one of the stepsisters.

I don't either. She really should have at least been nice to Ashley when ever her mother's back was turned or wasn't around. 

[Shanna Marie]

Thinking more about this one, the other way they copied "The Stable Boy" was in doing everything they could to stack the deck in the heroine's favor, only to then talk about her actions like she was the worst ever. So, we had Snow as a child, being manipulated by Cora, doing something she thought would help Regina, and yet later they talked about it as though Snow really was in the wrong, had wronged Regina, and deserved Regina's ire. If they were going to later act like she was at fault, all they had to do to set it up properly would have been have Snow get mad at Regina and tell Cora out of spite -- not thinking that would get Daniel killed, but thinking Cora would stop Regina from jilting Leopold and running away with Daniel.

Here, they show Clorinda being awful to Ella. She was the one who burned the dress. Was she the one who coined the "Cinderella" name, or was that the other sister? There was no indication that she'd ever been at all kind to Ella, not even behind her mother's back. I'm sure she was aware that was possible, since I doubt the footman would have proposed if she'd been nasty to him all the time rather than only when her mother was watching. And yet Ella is considered the one who's truly wicked because she didn't put the happiness of the person who'd been tormenting her all that time ahead of her own. If that was the outcome they wanted, then why not show that Clorinda was nice to Ella behind Lady Tremaine's back? Then what Ella did would have looked more like a betrayal.

I was rather amused by the "see something out of context and misinterpret it" part of the plot, where Ella saw the prince giving Clorinda a rose, since the big misunderstanding is a staple of the Hallmark movies, and the actress playing  Ella/Ashley is in a lot of those. In this case, I'll let it slide, since the lifetime of abuse would have primed her to believe Lady Tremaine about a prince never wanting someone like her. However, it was still contrived because it seems like unlikely behavior for the prince. If you've just met the woman of your dreams, but you both barely know each other and therefore don't know enough to understand actions without context, are you going to risk even the slightest misunderstanding by excusing yourself to go give some other woman a red rose without first making it clear what you're doing? Most people would have said something like "I have a message to pass on for a friend" rather than just making a vague excuse because they wouldn't have wanted the woman of their dreams to think they were already with someone else. Without the explanation, jumping to the wrong conclusion is understandable. I'm not even sure why they bothered, since there's already the midnight thing built into the story if they needed a reason for Ella to run off, and Clorinda told her news right away, so the misunderstanding ended up being meaningless.

[KAOS Agent]

The ridiculously twisted morality on this show never ceases to amaze me. Get off on mass murder and don't feel particularly bad about it? No problem. I'm sure you were just a victim. You are totally deserving of a happy ending. Been bullied and abused, living a life of domestic servitude? Victimhood doesn't look good on you. You absolutely must give up your chance of happiness so your tormentor can have a happy life or you will be punished and deserve to die for your selfishness.

Fairy tales are morality tales meant to teach children life lessons. What the hell kind of messages are the kids who watch this show getting? Be a bully, it's completely acceptable to make mean spirited comments to your friends victims, crime does actually pay, doing the right or heroic thing is for suckers. It just keeps getting worse as the show goes on, doubling down on some of the more idiotic ideas they've used in the past (e.g. telling secrets is the worst thing ever!)

[andromeda331]

8 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

Thinking more about this one, the other way they copied "The Stable Boy" was in doing everything they could to stack the deck in the heroine's favor, only to then talk about her actions like she was the worst ever. So, we had Snow as a child, being manipulated by Cora, doing something she thought would help Regina, and yet later they talked about it as though Snow really was in the wrong, had wronged Regina, and deserved Regina's ire. If they were going to later act like she was at fault, all they had to do to set it up properly would have been have Snow get mad at Regina and tell Cora out of spite -- not thinking that would get Daniel killed, but thinking Cora would stop Regina from jilting Leopold and running away with Daniel.

Here, they show Clorinda being awful to Ella. She was the one who burned the dress. Was she the one who coined the "Cinderella" name, or was that the other sister? There was no indication that she'd ever been at all kind to Ella, not even behind her mother's back. I'm sure she was aware that was possible, since I doubt the footman would have proposed if she'd been nasty to him all the time rather than only when her mother was watching. And yet Ella is considered the one who's truly wicked because she didn't put the happiness of the person who'd been tormenting her all that time ahead of her own. If that was the outcome they wanted, then why not show that Clorinda was nice to Ella behind Lady Tremaine's back? Then what Ella did would have looked more like a betrayal.

Yeah, that's another annoying and frustrating and really just weird part of the show. They want us to completely believe something. That Snow's evil and responsible for ruining Regina's life, Eva told Leopold about Cora because she's evil and Clorinda wasn't so bad. But then they don't show it. They won't give us any reason or scene that shows Snow's bad, evil or responsible.  Why won't they? They easily could have made Snow evil or tell Cora to keep Regina as her stepmother and not realize that Cora would kill Daniel But they don't. The only time Snow acts like a brat was once before her mother died and her mother corrected her on it. They could have shown Eva telling Leopold to keep him or to screw over Cora since she tripped her once before and said something snotty but she doesn't. They could have shown Clorinda, looking sympathetic when her mother's terrorizing Ashley, being nice to Ashley behind her mother's back but they don't. But they sure will talk to death at how it was her fault. Why not just show us?

[andromeda331]

17 minutes ago, KAOS Agent said:

The ridiculously twisted morality on this show never ceases to amaze me. Get off on mass murder and don't feel particularly bad about it? No problem. I'm sure you were just a victim. You are totally deserving of a happy ending. Been bullied and abused, living a life of domestic servitude? Victimhood doesn't look good on you. You absolutely must give up your chance of happiness so your tormentor can have a happy life or you will be punished and deserve to die for your selfishness.

Fairy tales are morality tales meant to teach children life lessons. What the hell kind of messages are the kids who watch this show getting? Be a bully, it's completely acceptable to make mean spirited comments to your friends victims, crime does actually pay, doing the right or heroic thing is for suckers. It just keeps getting worse as the show goes on, doubling down on some of the more idiotic ideas they've used in the past (e.g. telling secrets is the worst thing ever!)

It really is messed up. What is the point of being "good" then? Why is it so bad to be a villain then? Clearly its much better to be a villain you can murder all you want and won't ever have to face any consequences, it was their fault not yours, a misunderstanding and no matter how many people you kill and other evil deeds you can still get into Heaven!