A Thread for All Seasons: This Story Is Over, But Still Goes On.

[lovett1979]

I'm currently in the middle of my first re-watch of the series. I had originally binged it during the summer before Season 7, and then finished the show as it aired. I'm up to the middle of 4B and...I have some thoughts

Season 1 is mostly great. There are a few backstories that we don't really need (Dreamy/Grumpy and the fairy we never see again come to mind) but for the most part, it is solid. Also, while some of the stories featured are from Disney movies (Snow White, Pinocchio, Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast) they are not depicted exactly as those movies are told and there are also other fairy tales included (Little Red Riding Hood, Rumpelstiltskin, Hansel and Gretel) and completely made-up stories (Charming's backstory, Regina's backstory) (unless these come from stories I'm not aware of).

Season 2 starts well enough and Emma ending up in the Enchanted Forest is a great juxtaposition of the first season. Adding Cora (essential to Regina's story) and Hook (essential to Rumple's story) to the "present" makes sense, but adding other characters (Lancelot?) and world-building and world-colliding starts to get silly. (as much as I love the scenes of Neal and Emma reconnecting, and Neal realizing that he has a son, I don't like that Rumple's son is Henry's father. Also there is no way that the Bae the kid grew up into Neal the adult. Where did the NY accent come from?)

One of the overall arcs of the series is Regina's redemption from villain to hero, through the power of Henry's love/her love for Henry. I think it would have been a much better story to have Regina kill Cora outright (not being tricked by Snow) because she realized that Cora was a threat to Henry. That would have been a beautiful first step/choice to becoming a hero.

I liked the addition of the Greg backstory and him coming to town now. The whole "get rid of magic" thing was too much though, finding/avenging his father would have been enough. But Tamara was ridiculous. Her backstory (why did she despise magic, anyway?), the fact that she was with/playing Neal, the fact that she and Greg were "not only partners," her entire existence seemed pointless. And their "home office" being Peter Pan was just ludicrous.

The whole group going to Neverland (and Regina starting to work with the "heroes") is a great re-set for Season 3. (and of course Peter Pan is a Disney movie, but very different from the story being told here) But Pan being Rumple's father is RIDICULOUS! Rumple doesn't need more backstory, we don't need to waste episodes on him moping around with that doll, ugh! The whole Pan/Henry plot goes on a bit long and the body-switch/Pan in Storybrook ending seemed unnecessary (except it served to "kill" Rumple, which I guess they needed to do). Though I like the resolution of 3A where Emma and Henry go to live a "normal" life with false memories and everyone else has to go back to the Enchanted Forest.

3B is just...I can't. Wizard of Oz is not Disney/fairy tale. Zelena is a stupid name (her name is Elphaba!). Zelena's entire Oz story is convoluted and stupid. The Wicked Witch of the West being Regina's sister is another example of too much world-colliding. Zelena's plan to time travel, effectively erasing most of the characters/stories from existence, just...no. But the last 2 episodes are 2 of the series' best. Emma and Hook travelling back to EF and interrupting Snowing's meet is fantastic, fun, touching, and exactly the kind of "fish out of water" stories that the show should be playing with, not dealing with villain after villain, curse after curse.

I remember disliking the Frozen storyline of 4A when I first watched, but it's actually pretty solid and the plot fits with the rest of the show. Also, Frozen was based on The Snow Queen and that Queen was supposed to be a villain, so adding that character as someone other than Elsa and making her a villain was a good use of that story. But my main issue with it is that Anna/Elsa/Kristoff/Hans (where's Olaf?) are EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE MOVIE. It is clear that these characters just experienced everything that we saw in their film, and even their clothes are exactly what they wore in the film. This is a total departure from how everything else has been treated up 'till this point. Also, those capes of Elsa's and Ingrid's dragging on the ground kept irritating me. Not to mention the fact that Elsa never changed her clothes when she was in Storybrook?

I'm now in the middle of 4B, so I will reserve my thoughts until I've finished the season. But...Cruella? Really?

I guess that's a lot of complaints. Why am I using my time to watch this all again, I guess I gotta do something on the subway! And I am enjoying it, especially knowing how some things turn out. Thanks for letting me vent!

[Camera One]

5 hours ago, lovett1979 said:

But my main issue with it is that Anna/Elsa/Kristoff/Hans (where's Olaf?) are EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE MOVIE. It is clear that these characters just experienced everything that we saw in their film, and even their clothes are exactly what they wore in the film. This is a total departure from how everything else has been treated up 'till this point.

That raises a good point, and it did make the "Frozen" arc unique. 

I thought it was interesting to see the show just taking characters straight out of the original, and telling us what happened next to them and putting them into the universe of the series.

We were talking about this in the "Other Fairy Tale" thread, but I actually thought this was a better "sequel" for Elsa, Anna and Kristoff than what they got in "Frozen II".  The new backstory created on this series also was a believable scenario of what happened.  I appreciate mash-ups, so I did like seeing them try to incorporate the Original Snow Queen and the concept of shattered sight.  Beyond that, not much of the Hans Christian Anderson story remained, though.

[Speakeasy]

I personally thought the Frozen characters were very grating, it seemed like they were being treated extra nicely by the writers to make sure they didn't besmirch the good name of Disney's biggest cash cow. Anna was particularly grating in her flashbacks where she was both incredibly hypercompetent and filled with absurd childlike naiveté-I actually think in some ways she was more cartoonish in this version than in the actual cartoon.

Ingrid, on the other hand, was a pretty good addition, I thought her backstory was genuinely heartwrenching, I think far more so because she accidentally kills her sister and it's so abrupt. There's no lingering shots or dramatic music, just -zap-crash-dead. I just wish her plan had been better than abducting two random blonde witches to be her new sisters-she didn't seem unbalanced enough to think that was a good plan-and that it hadn't been tied in to Rumplestiltskin and... Whatever that was.

[Camera One]

7 hours ago, Speakeasy said:

I just wish her plan had been better than abducting two random blonde witches to be her new sisters-she didn't seem unbalanced enough to think that was a good plan-and that it hadn't been tied in to Rumplestiltskin and... Whatever that was.

That aspect of the plan was iffy.  I agree she needed to be slightly more unhinged for that to actually make sense.  Or if there was some power that would be acquired as a group of three.  Wasn't it implied at some point that there was some sort of prophesy with a family tree where Emma's name was written as one of the sisters or a drawing of Emma was in a book?  It has been awhile since I've rewatched.  

They could definitely have done a better job of incorporating Anna in the flashbacks.  It was part of their problem with centrics.  I think they were thinking more about inserting their shiny new toy than their actual main characters.  Charming's backstory in "White Out" was downright insulting.  I personally thought the actress who played Anna did a good job, but I think they put less thought into her character than Elsa.  She was also less defined in the original movie beyond being bubbly and enthusiastic.  But Annae grew up by herself secluded in a castle... she should have been building her own confidence out in the "real" world.    

Still, I think using their traits from the movie as a crutch ended up being a lot better than their thinly drawn "making it their own" versions of characters like Zelena, Hades, etc.

[KingOfHearts]

15 minutes ago, Camera One said:

Still, I think using their traits from the movie as a crutch ended up being a lot better than their thinly drawn "making it their own" versions of characters like Zelena, Hades, etc.

The only times outside of the main characters from S1 where the writers put their own spin on a character and it worked were Cruella and Arthur. I actually liked the changes they made to suit the show. Alice was a good character, but she's so far removed from what she's based I don't really recognize her as Alice from Wonderland. I do think some criteria should be established to help identify what was meant to be a close adaptation, a spin, or something mostly original.

[Shanna Marie]

21 hours ago, lovett1979 said:

But my main issue with it is that Anna/Elsa/Kristoff/Hans (where's Olaf?) are EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE MOVIE. It is clear that these characters just experienced everything that we saw in their film, and even their clothes are exactly what they wore in the film. This is a total departure from how everything else has been treated up 'till this point.

I think part of the issue is that those were the first characters they dealt with who weren't public domain. They'd used the Disney versions of the characters, but these were characters original to Disney, and I think Disney maintained a lot more control. It sounds like there were a lot of restrictions on what they could and couldn't do with them, and Disney wasn't up for A&E putting their unique spin on them. It's interesting that in the post season 3 interviews, right after the Elsa reveal, the Once writers were talking about looking forward to working with these characters and how much Elsa and Regina had in common because they were both misunderstood, and yet when we actually got to season 4, Elsa and Regina had almost nothing to do with each other. We've wondered if Disney jumped in and put a stop to that.

Whether Disney was the reason they were stuck in the same clothes, why Elsa didn't get something more practical and modern while in Storybrooke, is a good question. Was it Disney, or was it the same impulse that kept Hook in slight variations of the same theme through the whole series, so that even de-aged Wishverse Hook was still wearing exactly the same pirate outfit decades later?

[KingOfHearts]

I actually like the idea of using the verbatim Disney characters and throwing them into OUAT like the writers did with Frozen. I wouldn't want all the characters to be like that, but there's still potential there for interesting interactions and growth. S7 was a good opportunity for this when A&E wanted to do multiple versions of the same fairy tales. Disney owned so many properties even before the Fox merger that it's a crying shame they didn't utilize more copyrighted material. Maybe I wanted this just because Disney is better at storytelling and creating compelling characters than A&E?

I'm still a little bitter Snow never got to meet her Disney counterpart. That would've been hilarious. 

[tennisgurl]

I didnt mind the Frozen characters being exactly like their movie counterparts, I thought it was fun and interesting, essentially seeing a sequel to Frozen before the actual sequel came out. In retrospect, I wish we had seen more of that, especially if they wanted to do the whole "different versions of different stories" thing that they did in season seven. I mean, Disney Hook meeting Once Hook?! Thats comedy freaking gold! It also might have allowed Team Disney to come in and guide A&E a bit more, like with Frozen. These guys clearly need direction, and while Disney was mostly letting them do whatever weird stuff they wanted, when they started using very obvious versions of very popular modern characters, they clearly swooped in so that they didnt screw things up. Its possible that Disney might have taken a bit more interested and sent some more of their people in if they did more obvious Disney stuff? 

It still boggles my mind that, as much as Disney has access to, we got so little of its most iconic stories and characters. 

[Camera One]

I think taking an existing character and coming up with their next story like they did with "Frozen" in 4A provided a set of rules that the Writers had to follow.  That forced them to come up with a path for each character that was consistent with their personality and their life experiences up until that point.  The result wasn't perfect, but to me, it led to a more believable story.  We could trust that Elsa and Anna loved one another, for example.  Whereas in a story with huge changes where they made the story their own, there were questions like did Maurice actually love Belle?  Had Mulan lost the support and love of her family?  How genuine was Hades' love for Zelena?  These ill-defined situations affected the believability of the story and the character. 

Their own variations worked best in Season 1 when they had put thought into a full backstory.  They also had multiple flashbacks to show this new Snow and how she differed from other variations.  Compare that with Jasmine in Season 6?  Who was she, really?  I couldn't tell.  

Even when they diverged, having the "look" and behavior of the character be consistent with the cartoon sometimes made it work better because it provided a starting point for the viewer.  Cruella's backstory was wildly different, but she looked and acted so similar to the cartoon that it was a trip to see this new version.  

Edited March 8, 2020 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

4 hours ago, Camera One said:

Whereas in a story with huge changes where they made the story their own, there were questions like did Maurice actually love Belle?

And did Belle actually love her father? In both the fairy tale and the Disney versions, she goes to live with the Beast to save her father. On this show, it's to save her kingdom, so her relationship with her father doesn't matter. Rumple doesn't let her go because she sees in the magic mirror that her father needs help. When she's free, she goes off adventuring instead of going back home even for a visit, and it doesn't ever seem to matter to her that Rumple beat her father almost to death, and then that's swept away as, "He's forgiven you."

With Belle, they were trying to have it both ways, going off in their own direction and at the same time making her just like the cartoon version. She wanted adventure, but she was okay marrying a guy who wouldn't move from one village to another to make his first wife happy. They keep her father in the picture, but he's never a motivation for her and she has almost no relationship with him and refuses to listen to him.

[ParadoxLost]

On 3/8/2020 at 2:52 PM, Camera One said:

I think taking an existing character and coming up with their next story like they did with "Frozen" in 4A provided a set of rules that the Writers had to follow.  That forced them to come up with a path for each character that was consistent with their personality and their life experiences up until that point. 

That was something this show always needed. Rules and structure.  It forced the writers to have creativity and to edit the ideas that they liked but didn't fit within the characterization.

That is something they could never do on their own and never seemed to work unless they had competent oversight.

[lovett1979]

Thanks for chiming in on my Frozen issues. That's interesting that Disney had so many restrictions regarding those characters. I still maintain that keeping the outfits the same was ridiculous and impractical. Also, Frozen 2 has shown us a different parent-backstory and a different future for the characters (as well as them WEARING DIFFERENT CLOTHES (that I love, btw)) so it makes watching those episodes now even more bewildering.

I've finished Season 4 now, so I'll add my thoughts on 4B. It's a mess. The "villains coming together" concept could be fun, but those three (plus Rumple) do not mesh well together and the story becomes very disjointed. Ursula is basically a non-entity and exits the story about half-way through the season. Since we've seen Maleficent before, it's good to give her a larger part but the whole baby thing/Snowing taking the baby/the baby being Emma's friend Lily is too convoluted (who was her father/why have the shows ultimate "heroes" do something so despicable/Lily disappears from the story and is never spoken of again). All that said, I love Maleficent's 30's lesbian costuming.

The reason I was so down in the inclusion of Cruella is that her Disney version seems completely out of place with the rest of the characters. Everyone else comes from a "fairy tale world" but Cruella comes from a story set in non-magical England. I realize that OUAT changes all of her backstory, but that even further distances her from the source. One thing I did realize was that she is the only villain that doesn't have a sob-worthy origin story. She was born evil, and she stayed evil, unlike Regina, Rumple, Ursula, Ingrid, Cora, and Zelena. It is maybe because of this that she is also the only one who truly-and-forever dies (is killed, even).

The final 2 episodes are the best part of the season, similar to the final 2 episodes of Season 3. Throwing the characters back into a "fictional" land and playing around with who they are/what they know is what the show should have been built around, not battling increasingly-dangerous villains each season.

Ultimately, my problem with the season is that it is entirely inconsequential. Finding the author, defeating the 3 villains-of-the-season, defeating the author, none of it mattered in the end. Our main characters ended the season exactly where they started EXCEPT for Emma becoming the Dark One. But that only happened because Rumple's heart was dying, which had nothing to do with the rest of the plots. Also, after a (half) season of drama over "Emma turning dark," she overcomes any dark impulses she has, only to then become the Dark One! If it was foreshadowing, it was clumsy, and if it was disjointed plotting, then...

[Shanna Marie]

On 3/11/2020 at 2:50 PM, lovett1979 said:

The reason I was so down in the inclusion of Cruella is that her Disney version seems completely out of place with the rest of the characters. Everyone else comes from a "fairy tale world" but Cruella comes from a story set in non-magical England.

I had the same issue. I thought she was an interesting character, and the actress played her beautifully, but she was really out of place. I don't think they ever explained how she ended up in the Enchanted Forest in the first place to be hanging out with Ursula and Maleficent so they could get sent away with the egg. And did she go shopping for just the right car to replace the car she had in her world once she got to our world?

I think this was when the "worlds of story" got rather ridiculous and specific. I thought the black-and-white world of Frankenstein was amusing (though still a bit of a clash to the rest of the stories). The "Victorian England" world they introduced with Alice in the Wonderland spinoff and continued with Jekyll and Hyde maybe worked a bit better because it's still somewhat fairytale-like. But then we have an entire world based on 20s London? And time doesn't really ever move, so that it's always 20s London? And presumably the same in all the other worlds, with them stuck in that same era forever, with no forward progress? No one invents anything?

On 3/11/2020 at 2:50 PM, lovett1979 said:

Ultimately, my problem with the season is that it is entirely inconsequential. Finding the author, defeating the 3 villains-of-the-season, defeating the author, none of it mattered in the end. Our main characters ended the season exactly where they started EXCEPT for Emma becoming the Dark One. But that only happened because Rumple's heart was dying, which had nothing to do with the rest of the plots. Also, after a (half) season of drama over "Emma turning dark," she overcomes any dark impulses she has, only to then become the Dark One! If it was foreshadowing, it was clumsy, and if it was disjointed plotting, then...

They do that way too often, where you could skip the whole season except for the finale and not miss a thing because it doesn't matter. You'd think that a whole arc about Emma struggling with her potential for darkness and prevailing, plus the revelation that her native darkness was removed, would end up playing a role in the storyline about her taking on the Darkness, but no.

[Camera One]

3 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

I had the same issue. I thought she was an interesting character, and the actress played her beautifully, but she was really out of place. I don't think they ever explained how she ended up in the Enchanted Forest in the first place to be hanging out with Ursula and Maleficent so they could get sent away with the egg. 

I think Rumple summoned her to Maleficent's castle along with Ursula, when he tricked them to help him to get the Dark Curse which was being guarded by the Chernabog.

No need to go into how Cruella crossed realms, how Rumple knew about Cruella, how the Dark Curse ended up there or anything!

I don't know why I didn't find her too out of place.  Fun mashups is one of the few saving graces of this show, so I'm glad they went there.

[Shanna Marie]

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

I think Rumple summoned her to Maleficent's castle along with Ursula, when he tricked them to help him to get the Dark Curse which was being guarded by the Chernabog.

I may be remembering it wrong, but I had the impression the three of them already knew each other. But then, by that point in that season I'd started to tune things out, so my memories are hazy.

[Camera One]

7 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

I may be remembering it wrong, but I had the impression the three of them already knew each other. But then, by that point in that season I'd started to tune things out, so my memories are hazy.

Rewatch time!  😈

This is the scene.

[Shanna Marie]

46 minutes ago, Camera One said:

Rewatch time!  😈

This is the scene.

Thanks! And, wow, but I must have really tuned out because I know I've watched that episode at least twice, and yet that scene felt totally new to me. I think I was mixing it up with the scene in the mid-season finale in which they hold Belle hostage, and there they already knew each other.

Rumple must have been desperate for potential darkness if he had to get Cruella from another world. He couldn't find anyone else dark enough in that world?

Except, I guess the key was "potential," and that's why the Chernabog went after Emma instead of Regina. Since the person who might have had potential for darkness but had never given into it was somehow darker than the person who'd actually slaughtered villages.

Is anyone planning another rewatch binge marathon while we're social distancing? Everything in my life for the next two weeks has been canceled. Actually, I'm thinking of revisiting Wonderland because it makes me happy.

[Camera One]

2 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

Except, I guess the key was "potential," and that's why the Chernabog went after Emma instead of Regina. Since the person who might have had potential for darkness but had never given into it was somehow darker than the person who'd actually slaughtered villages.

The Chernobog also went after Maleficent over Cruella, I think?  I thought Cruella was supposed to be pure evil.  

2 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

Is anyone planning another rewatch binge marathon while we're social distancing? Everything in my life for the next two weeks has been canceled. Actually, I'm thinking of revisiting Wonderland because it makes me happy.

Yes, it would be fun to rewatch Wonderland.  Can we start a discussion thread in this forum?  

[Shanna Marie]

12 hours ago, Camera One said:

Yes, it would be fun to rewatch Wonderland.  Can we start a discussion thread in this forum?  

There is a thread in "other genre shows," but way back because it's not very active:

But we might get a different discussion doing it as a thread here, where it's more active and where people think to look.

I'm assuming it's still streaming on the ABC site. I don't recall seeing it on the Disney+ lineup list.

[Camera One]

Ahh, so that was where to find the old thread.  I tried looking but nothing came up on Search.  It would be nicer to have the discussion on this forum.  As Regina once said, we should bring all the realms here.   We could also do more of a compare/contrast to the parent show especially after Season 6 with another glimpse into Agrabah.

This is the ABC webpage for it.  Do the videos work for you Americans?

Edited March 14, 2020 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

Do the videos work for you Americans?

They should. I've watched it a couple of times there so far. I'll have to check the ABC Roku app and see if it's there.

There's a lot of good compare/contrast possibility, just with the idea of redemption arcs and rules/limits to magic. Things would have gone better in season 6 if they'd remembered what they'd established about how genies and wishes worked. The whole plot of Wonderland hinged on the fact that Jafar couldn't control Cyrus as long as Alice had her wishes. In season 6, whoever has the lamp is in control.

[Camera One]

I'm just going to reply here.

30 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

The lesson Regina learned really didn't fit her where her redemption arc was at the time. She was acting selfish the whole time and even her big revelation was self-centered. She still lacked empathy. The same thing happened in S6 when she learned to love herself. It was still all about her. 

This made me think about the message they were giving about Regina.

In "Mother", were they giving us the message that Regina was her own worst enemy?  That was a lesson that could have led to her accepting responsibility for her actions and an acknowledgement that she made bad choices.

In Season 6, there was the message that Regina needed to love herself, all of herself, even the "dark" parts.  But that is minimizing her evil and making it sound like she should embrace the mistakes she made (which destroyed other people's lives).  

There was also the flashback where Regina learned that she, not Snow, was the person she hated most.  I don't mind that if they meant to show that self-loathing was part of Regina's personality.  But that sort of minimized how much she hurt other people, by telling the audience that the person who was most hurt by Regina was herself.   When people she murdered and their families was clearly more hurt by Regina.

So to summarize, it was always all about her.  Which is the opposite of what you would need in a redemption arc.

Edited March 20, 2020 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

36 minutes ago, Camera One said:

In Season 6, there was the message that Regina needed to love herself, all of herself, even the "dark" parts. 

Which would be a positive message if she wasn't a mass murderer. Loving yourself including your imperfections is one thing. Embracing your inner mass murdering dictator is another. All the villains in this show act like they're just recovering alcoholics or something. There's no respect for the gravity of their crimes.

Quote

I don't mind that if they meant to show that self-loathing was part of Regina's personality.

Did Regina really hate herself? She seemed to hate what people called her, but was it really because she knew they were right deep inside? Regina's problems are always so over-complicated, even when it's as simple as "murder = bad".

Edited March 20, 2020 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

20 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

Did Regina really hate herself? She seemed to hate what people called her, but was it really because she knew they were right deep inside? Regina's problems are always so over-complicated, even when it's as simple as "murder = bad".

Cupid's arrow never lies, LOL.

20 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

Loving yourself including your imperfections is one thing. Embracing your inner mass murdering dictator is another. All the villains in this show act like they're just recovering alcoholics or something. There's no respect for the gravity of their crimes.

Yes, that is the key, something the Writers never seemed to grasp.

[Speakeasy]

'Regina hates herself the most!' was so fucking trite as a plot point, I twitch every time I see 'character X really hates... Themself!' on TV. It's played out pop psychology and it's never properly explored.

It's particularly bad in this case because it's actually (in my view) a really interesting approach to her character. If all her hatred for Snow White is her looking to punish her younger self by proxy; punish her for underestimating her mother, for believing her mother, for not listening to her mother (she told me she told me 'love is weakness' she said), for thinking she could be happy without being strong-and she hates Snow even more because Snow-as-young-Regina doesn't break under the pressure. 

It also reminds me of 'The Killing Joke' where 

Spoiler

The Joker tries to break Commissioner Gordon by torturing him and his daughter, and he keeps saying it's to prove a point-that anyone can go mad, anyone can be made like him if they go through something horrible enough.

Alan Moore hates The Killing Joke but I love it as a tragedy. Because Gordon doesn't go mad-and under all the Joker's cruelty he is just terrified that everyone else is right, that he is irreparably broken. He needs the world to be mad and everyone to be one bad day away from going on a thematic killing spree, or what's left for him? What is he?

So I see Regina kind of like that. She needs to break this other her, but every time she kicks Snow White she gets back up. Snow White is meant to be all her flaws to burn in effigy, but she isn't. Even when Regina has every conceivable advantage, when she inflicts every injury she can think of, she still loses and Snow still gets her handsome prince and her loyal friends and her Happy Fucking Ending.

So what does that say about Regina? If Snow White is her, gone down a different path, that makes Regina the bad version. Not just bad, the inferior version, the defective version. It means she messed up her life and Snow is living the life she should with the attitude and the mind and heart she should have and that makes her furious.

Now if she can step back from the 'Snow is the young stupid me who needs to be punished for her/my stupidity'-then Snow is still a pampered young Muggle princess who manages not only to survive the worst Regina can throw at her, but to rally, to regroup and to beat her. Self hatred is always unhealthy but I think anyone would be at least disappointed in themselves if, with years of planning, an entire army and vast magical powers, they managed to be consistently beaten by a girl they forced to live in the forests.

And that she's happy-Snow being happy or even anything but consumed by rage and resentment just throws Gina's own mindset into sharp relief. It would actually make perfect sense that she's focussing all this hatred outward so that it doesn't eat her alive and screaming.

In show this 'revelation' was about 3 or 4 years too late for that though and it had no real follow through. So.... Eh.

[Shanna Marie]

On 3/19/2020 at 7:49 PM, Camera One said:

There was also the flashback where Regina learned that she, not Snow, was the person she hated most.  I don't mind that if they meant to show that self-loathing was part of Regina's personality.

But I don't feel like they did show that. They said it, but it came out of nowhere. It was like whiplash in 5B when she was counseling Emma about the way Hook felt when he didn't think he deserved another chance at life and talked about how hard it was to forgive herself. Bitch, please, we just spent a whole freaking arc about her feeling like she was being ripped off because she didn't get a happy ending when there was one thing she wanted but didn't get (and then got it anyway). If she really hated herself, she wouldn't have felt like she deserved the happy ending and wouldn't have put everyone through what they did to find the Author for her. If she hated herself, she wouldn't have had the big, triumphant "I regret nothing" moment. She barely admitted she might have been in the wrong about some things. The closest she came to apologizing for the curse was admitting that she didn't have to make everyone miserable with the fake identities.

The obvious contrast is Captain Self Loathing, who not only feared he didn't deserve a happy ending, but feared he didn't deserve to live. He tortured himself over his past deeds rather than getting snippy if someone had the temerity to bring them up.

On 3/19/2020 at 7:49 PM, Camera One said:

In "Mother", were they giving us the message that Regina was her own worst enemy?  That was a lesson that could have led to her accepting responsibility for her actions and an acknowledgement that she made bad choices.

I do think that was the message of that episode. The problem was that they later muddled everything and conflated "own worst enemy" with "hates herself the most," and those are two totally different things. You can be your own worst enemy while being a raging narcissist because going after the things you want is probably not the best thing for you. Being your own worst enemy can be self-sabotage, but that doesn't necessarily mean you hate yourself. Regina was her own worst enemy because she was the one making herself unhappy even while she blamed everyone else. The people she hated weren't doing anything to her. Snow would have happily accepted her as a stepmother and she could have had a family, but she kept herself distant from Snow and her father. After Regina kicked her out, Snow really just wanted to be left alone, and if Regina had done so, Snow would have left the kingdom and Regina could have had everything. Likewise, when it came time to cast the curse, she could have stayed in the palace with her father. Regina drank the barrenness potion to spite her mother, when really it was herself she hurt. But she did all those things in an attempt to hurt others, not because she loathed herself.

I do think they could have done the trite self-loathing story with her, but they'd have had to skip the whole "I need to speak to the manager" storyline in which she wanted what she thought were the rules of the universe changed to accommodate her. That is not self-loathing. And they would have had to skip the tree of no regrets.

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

Emma's darkness is ok as a theme-I guess, though personally my eyes rolled back inside my head and I had to have them surgically realigned* when Rumpy said 'ah, you see EMMA actually has the greatest potential for darkness dundundun!' it's so obvious and so nonsensical at this point-but I really think that it needed a better working knowledge of what 'darkness' actually is in this context.

My headcanon was that as the Savior with a lot of light magic, she had an equal and opposite potential for "darkness". Because Emma was so powerful, she'd be a force to be reckoned with as a villain.

I'm also fine with Emma fighting "darkness" or whatever. But there are a couple of issues (well, more than a couple) with how the show handled it. First, Emma's struggles had little to do with her abandonment issues or realistic temptations to do anything bad. Everything was very artificial. She became a dirty murderer because she killed Cruella in self-defense. She became the Dark One to save everyone. Even the stuff Clippy!Rumple and Nimue were tempting her with weren't all relevant to her as a character. They acted like Emma was just like Rumple or Regina with a magic addiction to tap into. "Using magic = bad" doesn't have anything to do with Emma's character arc. In fact, it's the opposite - she's supposed to be learning how to use magic for helping people. But when she wanted to heal someone, she got a slap on the wrist because she couldn't use light magic for some reason? 

It's like the writers tried to mold Emma into someone like Rumple, Regina, or Zelena, because apparently that's the only way you can show a character struggling with the dark side. Using magic as a crutch is not the only thing bad guys do. In the end, it seemed like Emma's time as Dark Swan was all bravado, but it didn't have to do with Emma's darkness. She made some questionable decisions, but they weren't exactly villainous. I don't think becoming the Dark One was the next logical step in Emma's development. It was like she was being shoved into the role of another character. It didn't work because she can't become a villain and still be the same hero. She isn't Regina or Rumple. Nobody wants to see Dark Swan walking around ripping people's hearts out. 

Edited March 21, 2020 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

14 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

They acted like Emma was just like Rumple or Regina with a magic addiction to tap into. "Using magic = bad" doesn't have anything to do with Emma's character arc. In fact, it's the opposite - she's supposed to be learning how to use magic for helping people. But when she wanted to heal someone, she got a slap on the wrist because she couldn't use light magic for some reason? 

I agree that was key.  And they actually had characters TELLING us that Emma was just as bad as Regina or Rumple.  Belle compared Emma to Rumple.  

This whole darkness thing was in 5A, yet in 4A, didn't Elsa get Emma to love all of herself, even the magical parts?  And Elsa's magic was never described as being evil.  It is all extremely inconsistent.

Emma saving Robin Hood from certain death was evil, but Regina healing people from more minor injuries wasn't evil.  So which is it?  

[KingOfHearts]

10 minutes ago, Camera One said:

This whole darkness thing was in 5A, yet in 4A, didn't Elsa get Emma to love all of herself, even the magical parts?  And Elsa's magic was never described as being evil.  It is all extremely inconsistent.

Even some of the darkness stuff in 4B made more sense than Dark Swan, at least in terms of what was true to her character. She was angry at her parents and didn't trust them, not to mention Lily. (But she was totally okay with Regina for some reason.) The fear of betrayal should've played a huge role in her descent into darkness. She has let people hurt her all her life, so wouldn't she want to take matters into her own hands? Clippy!Rumple should've played into her insecurities and paranoia, not magical addiction. Nimue telling her she was "nothing" was stupid and didn't help her cause at all. They should've told her she was a powerful and better than everyone else and that nobody appreciates her.

Edited March 21, 2020 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

2 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

Clippy!Rumple should've played into her insecurities and paranoia, not magical addiction. Nimue telling her she was "nothing" was stupid and didn't help her cause at all. They should've told her she was a powerful and better than everyone else and that nobody appreciates her.

Ingrid was much better at manipulating Emma.  That setup was actually quite good, but they did nothing with it except have Emma hide away in the woods for the most tedious 2-parter ever.

It's funny how Nimue turned out to be one of the most evil people in the universe, when her reason for revenge was more tangible than Regina's. 

[KingOfHearts]

5 minutes ago, Camera One said:

Ingrid was much better at manipulating Emma.  That setup was actually quite good, but they did nothing with it except have Emma hide away in the woods for the most tedious 2-parter ever.

Emma went through a lot of character development in 4A but it never seemed to go anywhere. It wasn't just about accepting her magic, but opening herself up to people like Elsa. Emma finally made a friend with someone she wasn't related to or romantically involved with, and they never so much as did a magical Skype call after that. Everything about Ingrid being her foster mom then sacrificing herself never mattered either. No one outside of Arendelle mourned Ingrid's death. Where the heck was Snow? Wouldn't Snow care that Emma had a foster mom who loved her? Wouldn't she want to comfort Emma after Ingrid's death or at least ask questions? Why would she not care about this? Why would Emma not care about this?

Edited March 21, 2020 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

9 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

Where the heck was Snow? Wouldn't Snow care that Emma had a foster mom who loved her? Wouldn't she want to comfort Emma after Ingrid's death or at least ask questions? Why would she not care about this? Why would Emma not care about this?

They got bored of Snow and Emma by 2A.  I think that was an early sign that these Writers were not interested in character-driven writing, no matter what they claimed.  A character like Snow, or Henry, became a tool rather than living, breathing people who lived within their fictional world.  

Their segregated writing style was so rigid which really stifled any intermixing by the later seasons of the show, even when it made sense.  They designed subplots for Captain Swan, or Snowing, or Rumbelle, or Current Shiny Toys.  Imagine a web where those three are on the outside, and then in the center is Regina.

If "Frozen" hadn't been carefully watched by Disney, I suspect Emma wouldn't have made a friend to have character moments with, and 4A would have been a mess like 4B.  

[KingOfHearts]

27 minutes ago, Camera One said:

If "Frozen" hadn't been carefully watched by Disney, I suspect Emma wouldn't have made a friend to have character moments with, and 4A would have been a mess like 4B. 

As evident by every plot in 4A that wasn't directly Frozen-related. They were all 4B tier.

[Virtual]

It's been a while since I've watched this show. But I never considered that Regina might have looked at Snow during the Enchanted Forest era, and saw in her a younger version of herself that needed punishing. I can see that, but only to a tiny extent (and only because of the Season 5 episode flashback of Regina as a child, which was the only flashback we ever got in seeing her that young).

I still very much considered her a villain during Season 4, given that she still had Sidney locked up, and she retrapped him in the mirror (her "it's only temporary" line I took zero weight in; I maintain that if Ingrid had not freed him, he would have spent the rest of the series in there). And then, she thinks she deserves a happy ending without doing ANYTHING to rectify her past villainy, like reaching out to family members of people she'd killed, or reuniting the children with their fathers that she seperated them from (I'm sure Grace and Hansel/Gretel weren't the only victims in this category). I'm glad Geppetto brought it up after she'd yelled at Pinocchio, because Snow and Charming are all too happy to brush it off (there was the whole 'should we trust her' from them during the Neverland episodes, but suddenly, after that, they consider her good).

Regarding the Wonderland arc from that spin-off, I always wondered where that fit into the OuaT timeline. During the spin-off show, Will mentions he lived in Storybrooke previously when they go back there, and he appeared in the original show during Season 4. And we don't see Cora during any of the modern day scenes in Wonderland, so I assume she'd already left long ago.

Wow, I remmeber a lot for not having watched this show in a while. Though I used to watch it a lot.

[Camera One]

26 minutes ago, Zenlethic said:

Regarding the Wonderland arc from that spin-off, I always wondered where that fit into the OuaT timeline. During the spin-off show, Will mentions he lived in Storybrooke previously when they go back there, and he appeared in the original show during Season 4. And we don't see Cora during any of the modern day scenes in Wonderland, so I assume she'd already left long ago.

When the show was airing, the "Wonderland" arc was supposed to have taken place during Season 2 of the parent show.  And Will appearing in the original show in Season 4 was supposedly after the main events of the "Wonderland" arc.   Supposedly, the Writers had plans to continue his story and connect it back to Wonderland, but they changed their minds, so that would have been pretty sad for Will to be stranded without his love again.

Some of us are currently rewatching the "Wonderland" spinoff in another thread, and it's nicer to think of the spinoff occurring after Will's Season 4 appearance on the parent show.  That way, he'd still have a positive character trajectory, and his failed romance with Belle in Season 4 could have added to his jadedness in the Wonderland spinoff.

[KingOfHearts]

44 minutes ago, Zenlethic said:

given that she still had Sidney locked up, and she retrapped him in the mirror (her "it's only temporary" line I took zero weight in; I maintain that if Ingrid had not freed him, he would have spent the rest of the series in there).

I haven't rewatched in a long time because I haven't had Netflix, but when I hear stuff like this, I go, "oh crap, that's right! That did happen!" Those moments seem to always make the characters look worse. The devil is in the details. In retrospect, I can handwave a lot. (As the writers did.) But when I remember the actual events and their order, I realize how easy it is to paint the show in a brighter light than it was. Especially when it comes to Regina.

Some day when I get access to the show again, I'll do a rewatch and y'all can read my complaints about small infuriating details.

Quote

 Supposedly, the Writers had plans to continue his story and connect it back to Wonderland, but they changed their minds, so that would have been pretty sad for Will to be stranded without his love again.

It still annoys me the writers didn't do anything with Will or OUATIW. You could forget Jafar ever had a spinoff and not miss a beat. It was a missed opportunity to make OUAT feel more like a universe that wasn't tied down to a single show. There was definitely ways to go about connecting stories without confusing the audience or forcing them to watch multiple shows. But if you're a fan who watched all of both, you should feel rewarded. 

The only time I ever felt rewarded as a fan for remembering stuff was when the "boy will be your undoing" prophecy came back into play in the S7 finale. The only other clever bit I remember fans speculating about was Henry's camera in Neal's apartment being used to help Emma get her memories back in 3B. With few exceptions, A&E were allergic to setup and payoff. You know how many dropped plots they had? How many teases came up and went nowhere?

Edited March 24, 2020 by KingOfHearts

[KAOS Agent]

On 3/24/2020 at 10:50 AM, KingOfHearts said:

With few exceptions, A&E were allergic to setup and payoff. You know how many dropped plots they had? How many teases came up and went nowhere?

There were two reasons for this. One - because they was very little forward planning and a whole lot of shiny toy/wouldn't this be cool? ideas that they quickly tired of or simply didn't know how to resolve and so they got dropped. Two - because they couldn't handle the idea of fans figuring things out. No clues could actually be given because fans might be smart enough to connect the dots and that was not okay with the showrunners.

These idiots considered changing Bae/Neal from being Henry's father because fans were speculating that might be the case. Now I personally wouldn't have minded Henry's father being a non-fairy tale related character, but changing an entire plot because fans had pegged it right is just stupid. If they can't handle fans speculating correctly, then they definitely aren't going to drop fun clues for the audience, so all you get is random twists that come out of nowhere. More disturbing though, is that the Neal/Henry/Emma connection could be considered to be easily dismissed by the writers since that was a huge part of the season 2 plot for several of their main characters.

[tennisgurl]

Reading comments in the Wonderland thread (on my to do list!) has reminded me of the whole Realms of Stories idea, and how annoyed I still am that we never got much, if any, follow up into how that actually worked. Of course, this all ties into the Author plot, one of the biggest let downs for me of the entire show. The story worlds and the Author seemed to exist to answer questions, and, because its this show, it just raised even MORE questions than I ever had to begin with! 

So, like, how does this work? Here is what I can remember as far as information:

Way back in season 1, Jefferson said that there are multiple worlds in the multiverse, connected but separate, some with magic and some without, and they all existed next to each other, bumping against each other in a big line. In season 2 we also established the existence of Dr. Frankenstein's black and white world, the first world we saw outside of the EF (and its surrounding kingdoms) and the Land Without Magic That Did Have Some Magic Actually that I can remember and probably the most unique and thematic world that we would ever get to see. So we have a fairy tail style world, and an old black and white horror movie world, which do seem like to follow with the idea of worlds where different genres of fiction exist. This is also when we start skipping from world to world with the convenience of driving to the town, and when things start to get...confusing. 

For one thing, what was in what realm started to get a bit confusing, at least for me. Because it became so easy to go from realm to realm, it was unclear it they were in actually different worlds, or just different countries in the same world (that happens when you have zero interest in world building) and the differences became less noticeable. Were the Darlings and Alice from our world but in Victorian times? Or are they from a Victorian era themed land? Later they would decide that they were from a different story world (as was Dorothy, stuck in fictional dust bowl Kansas) but for awhile, it was all kind of ambiguous. This was also when the lands started to seem more and more familiar. So many forests, so many crappy looking castles. The only worlds that didnt fit were the ones that were seemingly our world, until they decided that they weren't. 

Annnnnnd then the Author plot happened, and we officially went off the meta fictional deep in. So, the Author is one person, whos job it is to go from realm to realm writing down what he sees, and he takes it to the Land Without Magic (our world?) and uses what he sees to make books/movies/shows/whatever, and thats why fiction exist. We go to Cruellas home universe, which is a 1920s style world, where it is eternally the 20s, and no one actually knows what year it is when people ask them. We also find out that the Author isnt supposed to interfere with the stories he sees, he just records, but he CAN change things with his magic pen. This is also where we get into the Author playing God and changing stories and Regina and the villains wanting to change their stories, and then things just get really freaking confusing. We also get some name drops of previous Authors, most notably a certain Mr. Disney. Henry then becomes the new Author but wont use his powers or do Author stuff the way the rest of them have. In fact, I read the season four finale as the Author possibly affecting the LWM as well, all those cheering fans, it all seemed very Stepford fake to me, like Isaac wrote himself as a super famous writers, but thats kind of just my fan wank as to why such a shitty book was such a big hit. 

Then we get to the Land of Untold Stories, or as one might call it, The Land of Still Untold Stories Because We Got Sidetracked With Regina Crap. We find out about a world where people from stories that weren't allowed to finish their story are sent...or something, the whole idea was never really explored very well. Most of the stories we saw were more just stories we already know, just kind of weird or mashed in with other stories, or people who ended up there to avoid stuff from their normal world. 

Then, we dont really do much with an of that for awhile, as most of the multiverse stuff involved Wish Verse (which is just a whole different post) for awhile, the big finale, where Wish Henry wants to write individual books for every hero and stick them there, and then he gets talked down, grown Henry travels from realm to realm a lot but doesent seem to be Authoring very much (and ends up in a world almost exactly like his families, lucky lucky) and then Regina pulls all the realms together (or at least the realms we have seen) and takes over the multiverse, which is a good thing apparently, and we end. 

So, I have just a few questions. How many of these realms are there? Is all fiction real and from the story realms, or just some of them? Which ones really happened? Are Authors changing stories, and that why they're a bit different than the ones we know? Or is it like how in the last season there are lots of Cinderellas based on culture and stuff? How do the Authors decide what stories they want to tell? Do they just follow random people around hoping something interesting and narratively fulfilling happens? Do some people just give off protagonist vibes? Not every main character has a convenient Savior title or a prophesy that says that some shit is going to go down with them. So when we are reading books and watching shows, that actually happened? We are reading about real people? So when a character dies, thats really a person who died that the Author saw, or is it all just broad strokes? Because, you know, thats a fun thought. watching something truly dramatic or sexual or exciting or heartwarming, just imagine some random creep in the background scribbling away in his multidimensional unmarked white van. How did the Author even come to be in the first place? How did he find the realms of story? How did they come to be in the first place? The Cruella world seemed to be caught in some kind of time loop or something where it was always the 1920s, are the others realms stuck in a loop too? Is it always the Victorian era in the Darlings London? When a story ends, does the loop start again? Or do the stories keep going, just always in the same time frame, and no one notices? Because the more you think about this, it all starts to sounds pretty freaking fucked up and existentially horrifying, and makes you wonder about the Author just standing around watching countless horrors and just writing them all down for the amusement of people in some other plane of existence. Now that Henry isnt into being the Author, who is telling stories now? 

Also, did we ever figure out where Hook was from originally? He hung out in the EF as a pirate, but back when he was goodie goodie Lt. Jones, it didnt seem like it was an EF style world, it seemed to be a few decades ahead of them, and ew know the Jolly Roger can travel through the realms, so where was he from in the first place?

[Camera One]

4 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

Also, did we ever figure out where Hook was from originally? He hung out in the EF as a pirate, but back when he was goodie goodie Lt. Jones, it didnt seem like it was an EF style world, it seemed to be a few decades ahead of them, and ew know the Jolly Roger can travel through the realms, so where was he from in the first place?

Yeah, in "Good Form", Killian and his brother didn't seem to be dressed in medieval era clothes.  I'm not an expert but would his uniform be from the 1700s?  

I'm assuming it was the Enchanted Forest, since his father was later living there after his Sleeping Curse, LOL.  And it seemed like the medieval port was similar, from the Season 5 retcon flashback with Liam, to the Season 2 flashbacks with Rumple.  

Aurora and Philip's castle didn't look very Western European.  What style was that supposed to be?  

Edited March 26, 2020 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

9 hours ago, Camera One said:

Yeah, in "Good Form", Killian and his brother didn't seem to be dressed in medieval era clothes.  I'm not an expert but would his uniform be from the 1700s? 

Most of the costumes in the Enchanted Forest were more 1700s than medieval. I think they were going for the era of the Grimm brothers. The men's clothing (aside from knights and royalty, where they went for storybook medieval, and possibly the peasants, although that didn't change much over the centuries) had the coats and hats that were 1700s style. Rumple, for instance, was dressed very 1700s. The women's clothing was all over the place and mixed in random stuff like tight leather pants and Belle's hot pants, but the coat and hat Belle wore with the hot pants were 1700s. I think there was kind of an early 1700s silhouette to a lot of the women's clothes. But then they had tea-length prom dresses at Eric's ball and medieval clothes in Camelot, even though both were in walking distance from the Enchanted Forest.

I think the Enchanted Forest wasn't so much set in a particular era that corresponds to a time in our history. It was more a generic fairy tale setting. It was a storybook world that incorporated elements from a lot of times and places.

13 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

Were the Darlings and Alice from our world but in Victorian times? Or are they from a Victorian era themed land?

Spinoff Alice was from a Victorian era themed land. The Darlings were actually from the real Victorian London, since Bae went through the portal to our world when he met them. If Bae had gone to Victorian Literature World, Rumple would have been able to get to him there without the curse, since he went there to deal with Jekyll.

[Camera One]

10 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

Most of the costumes in the Enchanted Forest were more 1700s than medieval. I think they were going for the era of the Grimm brothers. The men's clothing (aside from knights and royalty, where they went for storybook medieval, and possibly the peasants, although that didn't change much over the centuries) had the coats and hats that were 1700s style.

Yes, that's a good point.  Belle was definitely not very medieval.  I was indeed thinking more of the knights.

[tennisgurl]

10 hours ago, Camera One said:

Aurora and Philip's castle didn't look very Western European.  What style was that supposed to be?  

I think it was supposed to look vaguely Eastern Europeanish, at least more than Snow and Charmings kingdom, although not much else about their clothes or culture (what little we saw of it) screamed Eastern Europe to me, historically or even a fantasy version. There was also Mulans magic China kingdom, which is also presumably in the area even if we never see it, as well as Arendale which is across an ocean but in the same land and looks like, well, Arendale so its magic Norway, and Meridas magic Scotland, both of which just copied the austetics and looks from their respective movies, and seemed to take place in the same world as the EF. Most every other world on whatever plane the EF is on just seemed to be set in vague "Europe in the past" usually pre industrial revolution. Which is fine if its just supposed to be a generic fairytale world, but it also leaves things pretty inconsistent and hard to really see a lot of differences between the kingdoms and the realms. 

[Camera One]

19 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

I think it was supposed to look vaguely Eastern Europeanish, at least more than Snow and Charmings kingdom, although not much else about their clothes or culture (what little we saw of it) screamed Eastern Europe to me, historically or even a fantasy version. There was also Mulans magic China kingdom, which is also presumably in the area even if we never see it, as well as Arendale which is across an ocean but in the same land and looks like, well, Arendale so its magic Norway, and Meridas magic Scotland, both of which just copied the austetics and looks from their respective movies, and seemed to take place in the same world as the EF. 

Yes, and there was also Prince Eric's maritime kingdom which was apparently close to Snow's kingdom, and then there was Agrabah, which could be sailed from Eric's kingdom.  Snow's kingdom was also near Fictional Ancient Greece, what with Hercules and Medusa being close by.

I was studying this photo of the United Realms once everything was brought to Storybrooke.  Did Regina only bring the major buildings over, or the actual land mass?  You'd think the Emerald City would be further away if the entire land of Oz was brought over.

Edited March 26, 2020 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

I'm not sure what the heck Regina's/Leopold's castle is supposed to be from. It looks like a science fiction evil genius's lair.

My guess is that they were going for that evil lair look in the early episodes, while the Charmings were in a more conventional fairytale castle. Regina was supposedly exiled at that point, so that was supposed to be her home in exile. Then they forgot about that later and had Regina still living in the same castle before she would have been exiled, and that meant she was living in the castle that used to belong to Leopold and should have belonged to Snow. So the good guys had an evil villain lair from a futuristic science fiction film.

[tennisgurl]

30 minutes ago, Camera One said:

Snow's kingdom was also near Fictional Ancient Greece, what with Hercules and Medusa being close by.

I wonder if their magic ancient Greece is the kingdom where King Midas was king, considering he is a character from Greek mythology. Not that there was anything else particularly Grecian about him or Abigail, but its something and they were certainly nearby. There is also Bells kingdom, which is presumably a sort of French style kingdom, considering everyone has their French names still, even if Belle has her random Australian accent that no one else has. Erics maritime kingdom is also interesting in that its one of the few kingdoms that is implied to have something of a religion or mythology that is talked about, with Ursula the sea goddess. Also, the only kingdoms that seem to be named at the ones that come with names like Agrabah or the EF, which is called Misthaven, even if its only named once or twice. 

[Camera One]

54 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

Then they forgot about that later and had Regina still living in the same castle before she would have been exiled, and that meant she was living in the castle that used to belong to Leopold and should have belonged to Snow. So the good guys had an evil villain lair from a futuristic science fiction film.

Plus Leopold's kingdom for some reason had their guards and soldiers dress in the creepy Dark Knight uniforms that didn't show their face.  They really didn't think things through, because clearly, that was originally supposed to be The Evil Queen's henchmen's getup.

[Shanna Marie]

5 hours ago, Camera One said:

Plus Leopold's kingdom for some reason had their guards and soldiers dress in the creepy Dark Knight uniforms that didn't show their face.  They really didn't think things through, because clearly, that was originally supposed to be The Evil Queen's henchmen's getup.

And that's just a silly mistake that was easily avoided. I can see them feeling stuck with the Evil Villain Lair by the way the story goes, but Regina could easily have chosen different outfits for her henchmen than Leo used for his guards.

Then we have the issue that either Regina moved really quickly to rip out all their hearts, or the palace guards were even more fickle than the Arendelle military. It looks like the guards saw the king's widow take over the government soon after the king's suspicious death, with her suddenly adopting a freaky wardrobe, and they all shrugged and kept doing their jobs, going even as far as to help her hunt down and try to kill the rightful queen. Hey, it's a paycheck.

6 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

Also, the only kingdoms that seem to be named at the ones that come with names like Agrabah or the EF, which is called Misthaven, even if its only named once or twice. 

I think Misthaven only got a name because they were going for the Shocking!Twist moment in which we learned that the place Anna needed to go that they'd been talking about all episode was actually our familiar Enchanted Forest. They wouldn't have had the big Aha! if they'd been talking about the Enchanted Forest all along, so it had to get a second name.

[KingOfHearts]

12 hours ago, Camera One said:

I was studying this photo of the United Realms once everything was brought to Storybrooke.  Did Regina only bring the major buildings over, or the actual land mass?  You'd think the Emerald City would be further away if the entire land of Oz was brought over.

With all the kingdoms so close together, I wouldn't be surprised if this was just a picture of EF before the uniting of the realms.

Edited March 27, 2020 by KingOfHearts

[daxx]

I’m positive we have put more thought into the world building of this show than the show runners or writers ever did. They aren’t Tolkien. 😂 

[KingOfHearts]

5 hours ago, daxx said:

I’m positive we have put more thought into the world building of this show than the show runners or writers ever did. They aren’t Tolkien. 😂 

I'm sure My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic had more thought into worldbuilding than these writers put in.

Edited March 27, 2020 by KingOfHearts