KAOS Agent June 30, 2017 Share June 30, 2017 Someone has been posting the script pages for Episode 4.01 A Tale of Two Sisters. This includes the page detailing the Snow Monster attacking everyone in the forest and Regina saving Marian. "On Marian's face. Filled with terror as she realizes what the audience realizes...she's done for. It's either Regina or the monster." Yep. Zelena as Marian was totally terrified of the Snow Monster and Regina because obviously she had no magic and no way to stop either of them from killing her. She was just going to let them kill her and take her secret that she's not Marian to the grave. This stuff is why their twists don't have the effect they should have. Because they obviously weren't planned in advance and instead of being able to rewatch and pick up on little clues that you missed the first time, all you get is stuff that makes the twist not make any sense. 8 Link to comment
Camera One June 30, 2017 Share June 30, 2017 12 minutes ago, KAOS Agent said: "On Marian's face. Filled with terror as she realizes what the audience realizes...she's done for. It's either Regina or the monster." Dear Fan, The Face Filled With Terror© comes with the Glamor Spell™. Hope that helps, A&E 9 Link to comment
Rumsy4 June 30, 2017 Share June 30, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Camera One said: Dear Fan, The Face Filled With Terror© comes with the Glamor Spell™. Hope that helps, A&E I actually really laughed out loud. Edited June 30, 2017 by Rumsy4 2 Link to comment
Shanna Marie July 1, 2017 Share July 1, 2017 Getting deeper into the rewatch, and I have to say that I'm glad I didn't see a lot of interviews with A&E before or early in the series run, or I might have had the same "nope" reaction I had to the interviews about Jack the Ripper in Time After Time being a "misunderstood" villain. I think I saw one where they talked about the place where the Evil Queen gets a happy ending, but I thought that was about the bit in the second episode with the gathering of villains and them talking about the world where they had a chance, which I thought was a fun concept (too bad they didn't use it). If I'd seen them talking about Regina being misunderstood or an underdog, I'd have noped out of the show, mostly because it would have been an indication of how bad the writing was going to be. Regina being "underdog" is one of those "you keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means" situations. There's absolutely nothing underdog about Regina. A person living in a palace, ruling a kingdom, dripping in jewels, with magical powers and her own private army just can't be an underdog, especially when her opponent is a homeless, penniless orphan girl living in a tree trunk in the woods (who's a penniless, homeless orphan because of the "underdog" living in the palace killing her father and kicking her out of her home). The mayor of a town who lives in a mansion, wears designer clothing, and has absolute power over everyone and everything in the town, to the point of controlling people's identities, is not an underdog. If they were writing her as an underdog, they were doing it wrong. I think if I were them, I'd also hesitate to say that she's a metaphor for my writing career. That would be like saying you stole someone's job and became hugely successful but couldn't be happy because that person was still managing to scrape together a living. I think I also would have laughed at anyone who told me that Regina would end up being redeemed, especially without having any kind of real hitting bottom moment, apology, or long-term redemption arc. What they wrote for her in season one was not the setup for a redemption story. Usually, when you're writing a redemption story, you throw in bits of humanity or sympathy even amid all the villainy, maybe front-load a little karmic retribution, and Regina didn't really have any redeeming moments in that first season, until maybe the end when she was upset about Henry dying. All we see is her being evil. In the past, she threatens an innocent animal and kills another innocent animal (offscreen, which may be the only way she got past that -- usually, killing an animal will turn people against a character), tries to have a newborn baby murdered, murders her father, and curses an entire kingdom. In the present, she's cruelly manipulating everyone around her and gaslighting her own child. She's willing to do all kinds of things that hurt Henry in order to score points against Emma. The closest she comes to showing even the tiniest spark of humanity is when Henry is missing in the mine cave-in, but all that time she's staring at that shard of glass, so there's doubt as to how much her concern is for Henry's safety and how much is her fear of what he'll find, that he might get actual evidence. It makes you wonder if the redemption later on, with all the retconning it involved, was always planned, if it was something they wanted to do but couldn't get away with in the first season, or if they fell in love with the character and wanted an excuse to keep her around when the show went on beyond the curse breaking. It's definitely not written as though they planned it, unless maybe it was one of those shocking surprises where they think that actually setting it up would spoil the surprise. 5 Link to comment
jhlipton July 1, 2017 Share July 1, 2017 5 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said: I might have had the same "nope" reaction I had to the interviews about Jack the Ripper in Time After Time being a "misunderstood" villain. "My daddy never loved me [stab] and I'm way too brilliant [stab] and beautiful [stab] for everyone around me [stab]". Yeah, right, "misunderstood". Uh huh. 1 Link to comment
Camera One July 1, 2017 Share July 1, 2017 Hello everyone. As A&E's Press Secretary, I feel I need to respond to some of these comments. 19 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said: Regina being "underdog" is one of those "you keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means" situations. There's absolutely nothing underdog about Regina. A person living in a palace, ruling a kingdom, dripping in jewels, with magical powers and her own private army just can't be an underdog, especially when her opponent is a homeless, penniless orphan girl living in a tree trunk in the woods (who's a penniless, homeless orphan because of the "underdog" living in the palace killing her father and kicking her out of her home). The mayor of a town who lives in a mansion, wears designer clothing, and has absolute power over everyone and everything in the town, to the point of controlling people's identities, is not an underdog. If they were writing her as an underdog, they were doing it wrong. Regina was an "underdog" because she wasn't popular and didn't have The Love Of The People™. No matter how hard she tried (to kill people and burn villages), people still looked up to Snow as the Queen. So that's why she was an underdog. She always had to fight against public perception and representations of her as a cruel and mean person even though she had feelings too! Quote All we see is her being evil. In the past, she threatens an innocent animal and kills another innocent animal (offscreen, which may be the only way she got past that -- usually, killing an animal will turn people against a character), tries to have a newborn baby murdered, murders her father, and curses an entire kingdom. Don't forget that Snow also cursed an entire kingdom, MURDERED someone's MOTHER right when she realized the meaning of love, and separated a newborn baby from her mother for 28 years. Meanwhile, Emma killed a woman who literally could not kill a fly, RIPPED out the heart of an innocent teenage girl, sped up a woman's pregnancy and SEPARATED her from her baby in order to MURDER her, and committed a offence in fashion by wearing too much white face powder. If the two of them could be redeemed, so could Regina. Thank you. If you have questions, please check Twitter. 5 Link to comment
Kktjones July 1, 2017 Share July 1, 2017 7 minutes ago, Camera One said: Regina was an "underdog" because she wasn't popular and didn't have The Love Of The People™. No matter how hard she tried (to kill people and burn villages), people still looked up to Snow as the Queen. So that's why she was an underdog. She always had to fight against public perception and representations of her as a cruel and mean person even though she had feelings too! And don't forget that no one ate the lasagna she brought to the potluck dinner! If that doesn't erase all her past misdeeds and garner sympathy, I don't know what will! 6 Link to comment
Shanna Marie July 1, 2017 Share July 1, 2017 I'll probably have more thoughts when I get to that point in the rewatch, but Hook's introduction was a much better example of how you write a villain you're planning to redeem and turn into a hero. They started with his semi-sympathetic origin story -- he was enough of a jerk that he's not too angelic to ever be considered a villain, but he was wronged in a way that was out of proportion to his crime. They made him be something of an underdog at the beginning -- he was scamming Team Princess with his wounded blacksmith act, but he really was under their power. They were all armed, and he was entirely unarmed except for his looks, his charm, and his wits. They even had his prosthesis, so he was a one-handed man kept bound and captive by a group of armed women. He worked with Emma, took a lot of the risks on their mission, and she was the one who double-crossed him. All of this happened before he started doing anything more villainous onscreen than being a jerk and saying inappropriate things, so he'd built up a kind of karmic frontload by the time he started acting like a villain. Then there were the traces of humanity he showed -- his love for Milah, believing in Emma and being impressed by her, his pain he expressed to Emma about what happened to him, reaching for and giving back Aurora's heart, possibly throwing the fight to allow Emma to get home (there's no text in the episode to support that, but it's hard to believe that an experienced pirate with a size and reach advantage could be defeated in a sword fight by someone who'd only recently even picked up a sword for the first time, and Colin says he believes Hook threw the fight), kicking the man turned into a fish into the water -- that showed he had the potential to be good. And then once he starts getting really villainous, for every villainous act, there's a negative consequence to him -- he menaces Belle, he gets beaten nearly to death; he shoots Belle, he gets hit by a car; he poisons Rumple, he gets held prisoner by Greg and Tamara. The karmic scales are already somewhat even by the time he has his epiphany and turns himself around, and he builds from there. We don't really get anything like that for Regina. We don't get her villain origin story until the end of the season, and it was anticlimactic enough to have me saying "Seriously? That's what this was all about?" We don't see anything bad happen to her, don't see her doing anything nice or good. It may be because they were trying to save the surprise of why she hated Snow, but all she talks about is her own pain and unhappiness, never anything about what happened to Daniel (as opposed to Hook, whose focus is on what Rumple did to Milah). She has the upper hand against all her enemies except Rumple through the whole first season. There's nothing until we see the flashback of her rescuing young Snow to give you the impression that she was ever anything but a villain or that there's even the slightest chance that she could turn things around and be a decent person if she could just get over the revenge thing. Since they did it right with Hook, obviously they know how to write a character introduced as a villain but who's destined to become a hero. That makes me wonder if the decision to make Regina a full-on hero came after the fact or if they're just so blinded by the character that they lost all their writing sense. 6 Link to comment
Camera One July 1, 2017 Share July 1, 2017 (edited) Quote We don't really get anything like that for Regina. We don't get her villain origin story until the end of the season, and it was anticlimactic enough to have me saying "Seriously? That's what this was all about?" The interesting thing is, despite all that, Regina did gain a lot of sympathizers right from the start, so they were successful to some degree. The second episode showed how difficult it was for her to kill her father. Combined with the patented Sadface, I know I did feel badly for her despite what she did. I mean, even in the Killing-Graham episode, there was plenty of Sadface that even got to me. Quote They made him be something of an underdog at the beginning -- he was scamming Team Princess with his wounded blacksmith act, but he really was under their power. They were all armed, and he was entirely unarmed except for his looks, his charm, and his wits. They even had his prosthesis, so he was a one-handed man kept bound and captive by a group of armed women. He worked with Emma, took a lot of the risks on their mission, and she was the one who double-crossed him. I personally saw him as a full villain at that point, and felt zero sympathy for him. I didn't see Emma's actions as "double crossing". She did the smart thing as a hero. Like with Regina, some people sympathesized with Hook right away, maybe because of his good looks, so again, the Writers did succeed in getting people to side with the villain over the hero, even from that early point. The whole finale flashback where his return with the bean was portrayed as such a noble action annoyed me as much as Regina's "sacrifice" to destroy the fail-safe she created. It wouldn't have bothered me if Cora, Regina and Hook had all died the big bad villain death at the end of Season 2. But from Season 3 onwards, his redemption was developed very well, even if it became a little repetitive by Season 5 and definitely by Season 6. Edited July 1, 2017 by Camera One Link to comment
KingOfHearts July 1, 2017 Share July 1, 2017 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Camera One said: The interesting thing is, despite all that, Regina did gain a lot of sympathizers right from the start, so they were successful to some degree. The second episode showed how difficult it was for her to kill her father. Combined with the patented Sadface, I know I did feel badly for her despite what she did. I mean, even in the Killing-Graham episode, there was plenty of Sadface that even got to me. I think there's an argument in Regina's defense prior to 2B. It's nothing that would ever legitimize her in the real world, but it could explain how she could be viewed as sympathetic in a TV show. She was consistently blinded by revenge, heavily manipulated by Cora and Rumple, and the Sadface did imply she knew she was making wrong choices. 2A strengthens this even more with her remorse over her treatment of Henry. It's not so much that she was misunderstood, rather her actions had real reasons. Starting in 2B, she was nothing more than a cartoon villain we were forced to love. I'll admit, if you don't think about it, her lasagna tears are saddening. That's because of the framing. But if you remember everything that had happened prior to that point, you get a crack in the mirror. And after you factor in everything that happened later, it completely falls apart. In other words, the scene preys on the most casual of watchers. Quote I didn't see Emma's actions as "double crossing". She did the smart thing as a hero. You could only see it as double crossing if you put it within the context of the script. It was obvious the writers were going for romantic chemistry, but the characters didn't know that. The audience can think, "Oh, he won't betray them all because he's being introduced as a possible love interest for Emma". Not everyone has to, of course. It's up for interpretation. Quote But from Season 3 onwards, his redemption was developed very well, even if it became a little repetitive by Season 5 and definitely by Season 6. Hook's redemption got kind of meh for me in 4B. I really didn't like his line about because he's a "villain" he might lose his happy ending. It was like puppy dog tears. He's one of the few grayer characters on the show that doesn't submit to the whole "heroes/villain" mentality, so it was disappointed to see him sucked into it. Brooding pirate has to brood. Edited July 1, 2017 by KingOfHearts Link to comment
Shanna Marie July 1, 2017 Share July 1, 2017 I didn't feel a lot of sympathy for Hook first time through. I definitely saw him as a villain until season 3. But they did enough groundwork that I bought it when he started on his redemption arc, and then when I go back and rewatch, I can see the seeds that were planted that he had potential to be more and better. I do think we were supposed to see Emma as making the wrong decision because she was making it based on what Neal had done to her, and we don't know what Hook would have done if she hadn't taken the compass and left him on the beanstalk. He just wanted to get to Rumple and didn't care who he hitched a ride with or who came with him, so I don't think he had much incentive to screw over Team Princess. In fact, I think his alliance with Cora was always a bit uneasy because the balance of power was so heavily tipped in her favor. He might have preferred to get to Storybrooke with Team Princess and leave Cora behind so he could get out from under her thumb. But when I go back and watch season one, I'm still baffled that they decided Regina was such a woobie and that there was ever supposed to be any hope of redeeming her. She may be one of the least sympathetic villains ever on the show, other than maybe Hades, whose backstory we never saw. Just about everyone else was given some spark of humanity or some true victimhood. With Regina, we had a whole season of her being utterly awful, with nothing to mitigate it, no real spark of humanity, and no karmic retribution. I'm not even swayed by the Sadface. That just showed that she knew what she was doing was wrong and was doing it anyway. If she felt so sad about murdering her father to get her revenge, then she didn't have to murder her father. Heck, Rumple may even be a little more sympathetic than Regina in season one, given that he spent a lot of it in the flashbacks locked in a dungeon, so he didn't have the kind of absolute power Regina had. He was a real bastard in both past and present, but he was also something of a trickster figure who occasionally helped the good guys (even if he did it for his own reasons), and the revelation of why he was doing what he was doing made a lot more sense than the revelation of Regina's motives. At least Rumple's scheme was aimed at changing his circumstances by reuniting his son. Regina just wanted revenge, and even if she got it, she wouldn't be changing anything about her present situation. No matter what Regina did, she wouldn't be getting Daniel back. 4 Link to comment
Mitch July 1, 2017 Share July 1, 2017 1 hour ago, KingOfHearts said: I think there's an argument in Regina's defense prior to 2B. It's nothing that would ever legitimize her in the real world, but it could explain how she could be viewed as sympathetic in a TV show. She was consistently blinded by revenge, heavily manipulated by Cora and Rumple, and the Sadface did imply she knew she was making wrong choices. 2A strengthens this even more with her remorse over her treatment of Henry. It's not so much that she was misunderstood, rather her actions had real reasons. Starting in 2B, she was nothing more than a cartoon villain we were forced to love. I'll admit, if you don't think about it, her lasagna tears are saddening. That's because of the framing. But if you remember everything that had happened prior to that point, you get a crack in the mirror. And after you factor in everything that happened later, it completely falls apart. In other words, the scene preys on the most casual of watchers. You could only see it as double crossing if you put it within the context of the script. It was obvious the writers were going for romantic chemistry, but the characters didn't know that. The audience can think, "Oh, he won't betray them all because he's being introduced as a possible love interest for Emma". Not everyone has to, of course. It's up for interpretation. Hook's redemption got kind of meh for me in 4B. I really didn't like his line about because he's a "villain" he might lose his happy ending. It was like puppy dog tears. He's one of the few grayer characters on the show that doesn't submit to the whole "heroes/villain" mentality, so it was disappointed to see him sucked into it. Brooding pirate has to brood. I think your right to pinpoint 2B when the wheels fell off concerning Regina...(well actually the whole show..) S1 and 2A all had Regina doing terrible things but for reasons...misguided though they were...and actually feeling ambivalent about it. They had Mayor Mills say things like, "There was a time in my life when I did very dark things," that from the line readings and context, were not meant to be manipulation of other characters, and Parrilla played her as she had an air of melancholy around her, which I think worked great for the concept of having the EQ living in our world in disguise..it made her seem more real and gave Parrilla a great role to play with..I think that was one of the reasons she became a "breakout" character on the show, showing the EQ in flashbacks chewing up the scenery....( I always thought that LP played it almost like Regina was playing a role, and her EQ garb was armor to protect her..I liked the scene where Regina is watching Snow and her Dad dance and she has this sad wistful look on her face...) and the more subtle and sad, though still dangerous power hungry woman in our world. The 2B came around and she was a cartoon villain in all worlds, boasting to Owen that she killed his father, helping her mother try to kill the Charmings and yet, we were still supposed to love her??? I think the zip went out or LP's performance during that time and she either just whined or acted like a drag queen on coke. Link to comment
Camera One July 1, 2017 Share July 1, 2017 Yes, other major turning points in 2B where the wheels came off included having Regina do a village massacre in flashback, turning Henry into a straight-up cheerleader (and equating everyone as being "just as bad" as Regina, multiple times), and framing Snow's defeat of Cora as an immoral, cruel and unjustifiable act. I mean, come on. But these 3 things continued to snowball as the show went on. Regina continued to do unspeakable evil to redshirts yet we're supposed to see it as sassy and then forget about it (eg. killing of the groom), Henry became worse and worse to the point of being insufferable, and of course Snow "murdering" Cora was brought up over and over again culminating in "Bleeding Through" where Eva was a mean girl to Cora so it's all "complicated". Because none of these were considered mistakes by Adam, Eddy, Jane, etc., the show was never going to get better, despite all our HOPE. 3 Link to comment
Shanna Marie July 1, 2017 Share July 1, 2017 I think a lot of the problem is that there was no real redemption "arc" for Regina. She pretty much went straight from all-out villain to all-out hero, with no transition, from enemy to friend with no real in-between phase. She was plotting to kill everyone in town and escape with Henry, after she destroyed all the magic beans so no one else could escape, but then when she stopped the failsafe she was suddenly totally okay. There was some minor conflict between her and the others in 3A, but it was because they disagreed on tactics, not because she had just been trying to murder them all. Even when they redeemed her, they kept her being full-on villain in the flashbacks, not even bothering to humanize her much there. They made her worse and worse, but didn't treat those bad deeds as anything serious, and there's no sign that she feels bad about them. It's most jarring in her relationship with Henry. He spends the entire first season talking about how evil she is, how she doesn't really love him. He eats the turnover to make Emma believe because he knows Regina poisoned it. During most of season two, he barely interacts with her. He doesn't want her killed, and he supports her when she says she wants to do better, but he's perfectly happy with his biological family. He rejects her offer to run away with him. He doesn't want to let her sacrifice herself, and he's proud that she's willing, but they haven't repaired their relationship. They don't interact in 3A other than a brief scene after he's rescued and before Pan swaps places (and even that scene feels out of place, considering where their relationship was). But then there's his tearful wish that he'd never brought Emma, which comes entirely out of the blue, and then in 3B when he gets his memory back, they pick up their relationship like there was never any problem or conflict. When she kicks him out because she's sad about Robin, they seem to have forgotten that he hadn't actually come back in the first place. He hadn't been in his room since she tried to keep him prisoner with the vines. He'd been living with the Charmings, then was in Neverland, then it was Pan who stayed in his room, then the year he spent in New York, then he was staying at Granny's with Emma, and then all the time stuff happened while Robin and Regina were having a fireside picnic in the living room, and then there was the bird with the "stay away" message. I think a real redemption arc with her would have been tricky, based on the way she was set up, but it could have worked if they'd let it play out gradually over time and showed her gaining some self awareness. I think for it to really work, it would have had to start when Cora killed the nanny. That should have been a come-to-Jesus moment for Regina, to realize who the real villain was and how she'd been so misguided. It's hard to buy any change after that, particularly when there doesn't seem to ever be any big "oh, I screwed up" realization. She changes, but it's hard to call it a redemption without any admission of where she went wrong or regret for anything other than what it cost her. 7 Link to comment
Camera One July 1, 2017 Share July 1, 2017 5 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said: I think for it to really work, it would have had to start when Cora killed the nanny. That should have been a come-to-Jesus moment for Regina, to realize who the real villain was and how she'd been so misguided. It's hard to buy any change after that, particularly when there doesn't seem to ever be any big "oh, I screwed up" realization. She changes, but it's hard to call it a redemption without any admission of where she went wrong or regret for anything other than what it cost her. Which would have been such a logical place. That was also where she found out Cora killed Snow's mother. But Johanna wasn't even a person to A&E. She was never mentioned ever again, just another redshirt we're supposed to forget about after the shock of seeing her thrown out the window. 4 Link to comment
KingOfHearts July 2, 2017 Share July 2, 2017 Quote She was never mentioned ever again, just another redshirt we're supposed to forget about after the shock of seeing her thrown out the window. Well, she did come up once. Zelena claimed she knew Johanna, so Snow used that as a reference when she hired a midwife. Link to comment
Camera One July 2, 2017 Share July 2, 2017 I forgot about that one. I suppose I meant in the context of explaining/exploring Snow's character and/or Regina's redemption/regret/evaluation of her mother's impact on Snow's life. 1 Link to comment
kingshearte July 2, 2017 Share July 2, 2017 On 6/15/2017 at 9:47 PM, Shanna Marie said: I think [Rumple & Regina are] a big reason why this show is so static. Changing the status quo much at all would generally require things to change for Regina and Rumple, and they can't bring themselves to do that. The end of season six isn't all that different from the situation in season one under the curse, other than that Rumple got Belle and a new baby and Regina has all the people she tormented kissing up to her and formalizing, via the title on her office door, what her position during the curse essentially was. On 6/30/2017 at 10:30 PM, Shanna Marie said: It makes you wonder if the redemption later on, with all the retconning it involved, was always planned, if it was something they wanted to do but couldn't get away with in the first season, or if they fell in love with the character and wanted an excuse to keep her around when the show went on beyond the curse breaking. It's definitely not written as though they planned it, unless maybe it was one of those shocking surprises where they think that actually setting it up would spoil the surprise. I've thought this for a long time. Especially about Regina, but you're right; it's Rumple too. The thing with a good villain is that by the end of one (or maybe two, if you can find a good way to stretch it) season, you really need to either defeat or properly redeem a villain, or the story stops making sense. Obviously, they weren't going to defeat them, because that generally involves writing them off entirely, and they certainly weren't going to do that. But to redeem them, you have to change the way you write for them, and therein lies the rub. A&E like Rumple and Regina exactly the way they are, so they haven't really changed anything about them; they've simply told us that they're heroes now, and changed the way other people react to them. And then everything starts falling apart, because the relationships no longer make any sense. On 6/24/2017 at 1:00 PM, Camera One said: I'd rather they embrace the wacky and give us fun things to watch, instead of pretending to be a character drama with no actual depth or development. This. This is exactly why I loved the musical episode so much. It was basically ridiculous and provided little or no story, relationship or character advancement, but it was fun. David and Hook on buddy cop adventures? Not usually particularly important, but fun. Various other quirks of whatever? Usually irrelevant, but often fun. So yeah, if they're not going to write characters and relationships in ways that makes sense, at least write things that are fun to watch, instead of heavy, depressing, and confusing. 7 Link to comment
superloislane July 2, 2017 Share July 2, 2017 (edited) I really didn't feel sympathy for any of the villains and I was a very casual watcher in the first 2 seasons. I was totally on Hook's side on getting revenge on Rumple because it was obvious who was in the wrong there but I never felt he was a poor woobie baby and I didn't even start to really like him as a character until season 3 and Captain Swan had a lot to do with that and because they started writing him as more than just Revenge!Pirate - other than Tallahassee, I actually think they wrote him pretty 1 dimensional in season 2. I also thought Emma leaving him on the beanstalk was absolutely the right thing to do - she'd be stupid if she took him along. I don't remember ever feeling bad for Regina in season 1. I thought she was a good villain who I could easily root against especially after Graham - I even cried during that episode and wanted Regina to die for the rest of the season. I don't even remember feeling bad for her when Daniel died because I was just annoyed that THIS was the reason why she hated Snow and it made no sense (up to that point I figured they'd have Snow accidentally kill Daniel herself because they hinted at Snow doing something to Regina's love) but what we got was so not Snow's fault that it just bugged me. I felt sympathy for her when Daniel came back as a zombie in season 2 and she had to kill him again but that was genuinely the last time I ever felt sympathy for her. I didn't even realise I was supposed to feel bad for her for not getting invited to dinner! And then the Snow killing Cora thing happened and they treated it like it was the worst thing that ever happened and Snow was totally wrong and that's when everything fell apart and I actually started HATING Regina. I thought Snow was absolutely right and I was so annoyed that Regina helping to murder Snow's nanny was treated like it wasn't a big deal and she was allowed to wander around town pretending to be mayor after she tried to murder them all and she'd given no indication that she was going to stop trying to murder everyone! It made no sense. That's also when Snow's character started to be destroyed - she started acting spineless and overly obsessed with how Regina was feeling. It's also when the show started being incredibly black and white for the heroes where they couldn't possibly kill anyone even in self-defence because it's evil but the bad guys can do it and it's heroic or just forgotten. I don't remember feeling sympathy for Rumple either although I still enjoyed him as a character. He at least admitted to his wrongdoing in letting Bae go and his evil plans to get his son was an understandable reason. I found him entertaining and mysterious but I never really thought he was a hugely sympathetic character. Edited July 2, 2017 by superloislane 7 Link to comment
Camera One July 2, 2017 Share July 2, 2017 (edited) I remember at the end of Season 3, I posted on the forum "at least they hadn't ruined Rumple yet". But for me, the beginning of the end was in Season 4 with the whole Hat/lying to Belle subplot, got worse with The Author subplot, and I was done with the character at the end of 5A when he screwed everyone over and then at the end of 5B when he again tried to screw everyone over. And to top it off, at the end of 6B he tried to screw everyone over for the umpteenth time and STILL got invited to The Last Supper. At this point, he deserves to die at the end of every episode of Season 7. Edited July 2, 2017 by Camera One 5 Link to comment
andromeda331 July 2, 2017 Share July 2, 2017 19 minutes ago, superloislane said: I really didn't feel sympathy for any of the villains and I was a very casual watcher in the first 2 seasons. I was totally on Hook's side on getting revenge on Rumple because it was obvious who was in the wrong there but I never felt he was a poor woobie baby and I didn't even start to really like him as a character until season 3 and Captain Swan had a lot to do with that and because they started writing him as more than just Revenge!Pirate - other than Tallahassee, I actually think they wrote him pretty 1 dimensional in season 2. I also thought Emma leaving him on the beanstalk was absolutely the right thing to do - she'd be stupid if she took him along. I don't remember ever feeling bad for Regina in season 1. I thought she was a good villain who I could easily root against especially after Graham - I even cried during that episode and wanted Regina to die for the rest of the season. I don't even remember feeling bad for her when Daniel died because I was just annoyed that THIS was the reason why she hated Snow and it made no sense (up to that point I figured they'd have Snow accidentally kill Daniel herself because they hinted at Snow doing something to Regina's love) but what we got was so not Snow's fault that it just bugged me. I felt sympathy for her when Daniel came back as a zombie in season 2 and she had to kill him again but that was genuinely the last time I ever felt sympathy for her. I didn't even realise I was supposed to feel bad for her for not getting invited to dinner! And then the Snow killing Cora thing happened and they treated it like it was the worst thing that ever happened and Snow was totally wrong and that's when everything fell apart and I actually started HATING Regina. I thought Snow was absolutely right and I was so annoyed that Regina helping to murder Snow's nanny was treated like it wasn't a big deal and she was allowed to wander around town pretending to be mayor after she tried to murder them all and she'd given no indication that she was going to stop trying to murder everyone! It made no sense. That's also when Snow's character started to be destroyed - she started acting spineless and overly obsessed with how Regina was feeling. It's also when the show started being incredibly black and white for the heroes where they couldn't possibly kill anyone even in self-defence because it's evil but the bad guys can do it and it's heroic or just forgotten. I don't remember feeling sympathy for Rumple either although I still enjoyed him as a character. He at least admitted to his wrongdoing in letting Bae go and his evil plans to get his son was an understandable reason. I found him entertaining and mysterious but I never really thought he was a hugely sympathetic character. This is how I felt about Regina. I hated Regina in season one. Starting with her arranging Henry to over hear what Emma's said. She clearly didn't care what damage she did to Henry and then when she killed Graham that was it. She was a villain. Any sympathy gained by Daniel's death disappeared the second she blamed Snow for it, knowing full well her mother murdered Daniel and what she was capable of. Snow had no clue who she was dealing with. For me there's really no coming back from targeting a child for decades because of something her mother did. Season one is full of horrible things Regina did, she knew what she was doing and she didn't care. She didn't care about how many kids she sent into the Blind Witch or separating Hansel and Gretel, or doing the same thing to them decades later while they were under a curse. In the seasons afterwards when we're clearly suppose to "love" Regina and think no one has suffered more then then her they add to her crimes. The massacre villages, wanting to blow up the town and take Henry, murdering a groom, etc. They had chances to really give Regina sympathy or have it be starting point in changing. Like Regina realizing she was like her mother and wanting to be better for Henry in the second episode of season two or as you pointed out learning that Cora murdered Snow's mother. That right there should have started the ball rolling. She stupidity blamed a child for what happened to Daniel but now she learns how far back her mother was scheming to make Regina queen and that doesn't change anything? No, realizations, nothing? Nope it does nothing. Instead we are suppose to feel sad because Snow murdered Cora. We're suppose to think Snow is the evil one. Not Regina who did decades worth of evil towards anyone and everyone. And we're suppose to really believe that Regina deserves a happy ending because...? She apologized to her victims? Nope, didn't do that. She returned all the hearts from her vault? Nope, she didn't do that. Henry's back in her life? Well, she never really apologized or acknowledge what she did to him, the gaslight or anything plus she has no problem ignoring him when she's too sad because her boyfriend's wife came back you know the one who she killed in the original timeline. She realized what she did hurt other people for example remembering how Robin told her about his wife's death? Nope, no sign she even remembered that conversation she moped about how life was unfair and she was never going to get a happy ending unless she forced the Author to give her one. When she had to undo the Curse costing her Henry, Regina finally realized even a little of what she put her Curse victims through? Nope not at all. Snow had to give her a pep talk which including mentioning being separated from her daughter for the second time. Crickets from Regina. She instead breaks into the Castle true she helped the Charmings take it but her mission was to put herself under a sleeping spell. She only abandons because she has a enemy to go after! Regina is determined to make the Author give her happy ending. No thought to what that would be. No questions on how she "won" for 28 years and all those years she terrorized Snow. She completely things she deserves it because the Author was wrong about her. How was the Author wrong? By writing down what she did? Only to decide she didn't need it after all. Regina learns that her sister Zelena's been masquerading as Marion and basically raping Robin. This reminds Regina of the 30 plus years she raped Graham and realizes what she did was horrible and wrong. Nope, she never thinks about what she did but has no problem blasting Zelena for what she did to Robin. Emma becomes the Dark One to keep Regina from becoming one. Regina is immediately and forever grateful for this huge sacrifice done for her! Nope, she uses the dagger to force Emma to do things including save her boyfriend, and berate Emma for being more evil then Regina because she forced Violet to break up with their son despite the fact that released Merlin from a tree. But yes Regina is so sympathetic and she's had it the worse. 5 Link to comment
CCTC July 2, 2017 Share July 2, 2017 4 hours ago, superloislane said: I don't even remember feeling bad for her when Daniel died because I was just annoyed that THIS was the reason why she hated Snow and it made no sense I think that was the first time I really thought -- well that was disappointing and what was with the build up. I think leading up to the episode there were interviews mentioning -- you are going to understand why Regina hates Snow so much and hinting that Snow did something horrible that will make you rethink that dynamic. After watching it, I thought - um no, Snow was really trying to help Regina and was manipulated by a psychopath. Regina was also not stupid and knew how cunning her Mother was by then, so why she placed more of the blame on Snow was baffling. It might have still worked if they wrote it as Regina being completely unreasonable to blame child Snow like this and have it reflect a big character flaw, but over the years, they largely presented it as a legitimate reason for Regina to have animosity towards Snow. On a superficial level, while I do think Lana is a decent actress and attractive, they maybe should have thought looking for a younger actress to play 18 old Regina. The braids and dress they had to make Lana look 18 just made her look older and like she had some "whatever happened to baby Jane" issues going on being an adult woman dressing as a child - and she did not really pull of the dewy eyed young ingenue in love. 1 Link to comment
Shanna Marie July 2, 2017 Share July 2, 2017 48 minutes ago, CCTC said: I think that was the first time I really thought -- well that was disappointing and what was with the build up. I almost quit the show over that. It was such a huge letdown, especially since the show had treated Regina's animosity so seriously. 49 minutes ago, CCTC said: It might have still worked if they wrote it as Regina being completely unreasonable to blame child Snow like this and have it reflect a big character flaw, but over the years, they largely presented it as a legitimate reason for Regina to have animosity towards Snow. Not only that, but they added in the "I was such a brat" narrative, even though what they showed us wasn't bratty at all. It was Snow sacrificing her own happiness in order for Regina to be happy, since she wanted Regina to be her stepmother, and by telling Cora, she thought she was allowing Regina to be with the person she loved and not having to marry her father. If they were going to go with Regina being justified and Snow being a brat, then they needed to have shown us something different, say, Snow running straight to Cora after catching Regina with Daniel. That would have allowed a little gray area, where Snow wasn't evil, but possibly bratty, and she was telling out of spite and anger rather than out of love. It's like the underdog story, where they showed Regina having every advantage but told us she was an underdog. They showed Regina being entirely in the wrong, but told us she was justified and that Snow was a brat. I guess we never got the apology scene and admission of wrongdoing because they didn't believe Regina was wrong. In their view, Regina was the one who forgave, and that's why she stopped trying to kill Snow, not because she realized she was wrong. 5 Link to comment
Camera One July 3, 2017 Share July 3, 2017 3 hours ago, CCTC said: It might have still worked if they wrote it as Regina being completely unreasonable to blame child Snow like this and have it reflect a big character flaw, but over the years, they largely presented it as a legitimate reason for Regina to have animosity towards Snow. I think A&E realized their "mistake" in not making Snow more culpable. I think that's the reason why they had Snow murder Cora so "cruelly", to give Regina legitimate beef towards Snow. Thus Regina mentioning it over and over again, and never having David or Emma defend Snow for killing that monster Cora. Oops, sorry, I'm being so insensitive. 3 Link to comment
Rumsy4 July 3, 2017 Share July 3, 2017 Just now, Camera One said: and never having David or Emma defend Snow for killing that monster Cora. Yeah. This has always bothered me too. Everyone just lets Regina be so "sassy". 3 Link to comment
andromeda331 July 3, 2017 Share July 3, 2017 33 minutes ago, Camera One said: I think A&E realized their "mistake" in not making Snow more culpable. I think that's the reason why they had Snow murder Cora so "cruelly", to give Regina legitimate beef towards Snow. Thus Regina mentioning it over and over again, and never having David or Emma defend Snow for killing that monster Cora. Oops, sorry, I'm being so insensitive. Yes, its ironic that they made the same mistake again. Snow murdering Cora who was about to win and become the Dark One and be undefeatable. That's not evil. That's what any hero and/or any sane person would do. We also still don't know if Cora wasn't playing Regina. A&E saying it doesn't make it so. Especially if that's not what you show on screen. Evil is slaughtering villages. Evil is throwing an older woman out a window to her death. Evil is not saving everyone by killing the psychopath before they become unstoppable. 3 hours ago, Shanna Marie said: I almost quit the show over that. It was such a huge letdown, especially since the show had treated Regina's animosity so seriously. Not only that, but they added in the "I was such a brat" narrative, even though what they showed us wasn't bratty at all. It was Snow sacrificing her own happiness in order for Regina to be happy, since she wanted Regina to be her stepmother, and by telling Cora, she thought she was allowing Regina to be with the person she loved and not having to marry her father. If they were going to go with Regina being justified and Snow being a brat, then they needed to have shown us something different, say, Snow running straight to Cora after catching Regina with Daniel. That would have allowed a little gray area, where Snow wasn't evil, but possibly bratty, and she was telling out of spite and anger rather than out of love. It's like the underdog story, where they showed Regina having every advantage but told us she was an underdog. They showed Regina being entirely in the wrong, but told us she was justified and that Snow was a brat. I guess we never got the apology scene and admission of wrongdoing because they didn't believe Regina was wrong. In their view, Regina was the one who forgave, and that's why she stopped trying to kill Snow, not because she realized she was wrong. This yes! All of this yes! Link to comment
KAOS Agent July 3, 2017 Share July 3, 2017 I was looking at a gif set of memorable events from the show (all seasons) and I realized that the only ones I really looked back at fondly were S3 and earlier. 4A wasn't bad, but "Heroes and Villains" was really where the writers stopped caring about writing a cohesive story where previous events in the show mattered. All that build up of Hook signaling Emma and her noticing something was off, Belle getting clues that all was not right with Rumpel and the dagger including the mirror flat out telling her so, Ingrid knowing the Rumpel was acting evilly and not telling Emma before she died, etc and it's all resolved when a heretofore unknown item falls off a shelf. Nothing mattered. Even Emma's issues about losing someone she cares about were nonexistent by the end since she did lose a loved one (Ingrid) and almost lost Hook and she had zero reaction to any of it. If you're going to write a serial drama, you can't have nothing be relevant at the end. This show had some of that prior to "Heroes and Villains" but this was the first time where none of the previous actions of the heroes mattered at all. Way to remove the drama from the show. There's no reason to care about anything plot or character wise. 4B repeated the same thing because it was obvious that the show was heading toward wacky AU world, which meant that nothing anyone did was going to stop the villains from getting the Author to write their story. The entire half season was filler. Worse, it was filled with depressing and often character assassinating filler - Eggnapping! Emma is evil for killing Cruella! Zelena=Marian and is raping Robin! Oh and she's pregnant! Man, 4B was awful. The show never recovered from this dreck. There were parts I liked more than others, but it was so clear when looking at that all season gif set that I haven't actually enjoyed this show for three years. It did help clarify my feelings of not caring about S7. Even if it is a total reboot, why would I subject myself to more of the same? 8 Link to comment
superloislane July 3, 2017 Share July 3, 2017 11 hours ago, Camera One said: I think A&E realized their "mistake" in not making Snow more culpable. I think that's the reason why they had Snow murder Cora so "cruelly", to give Regina legitimate beef towards Snow. Thus Regina mentioning it over and over again, and never having David or Emma defend Snow for killing that monster Cora. Oops, sorry, I'm being so insensitive. I remember in the season 2 finale when Snow was arguing that they should risk the entire town to save Regina (who just tried to murder the town) because she killed her mother and Emma said that Snow had to do that and Snow said no there were other paths she could have taken and gives this big terrible speech. Even when Emma defends Snow killing Cora, it's supposed to show that she's in the wrong for thinking this just like she was apparently in the wrong for leaving Regina to die (which she wasn't). I remember watching this and thinking 'What other paths were there Snow? List them out I dare you!' but the writers have never actually been able to list out any alternatives to killing Cora. 4 Link to comment
Rumsy4 July 3, 2017 Share July 3, 2017 (edited) I really expected Regina to have this realization that her mother was a terrible human being, and never loved her, and would choose to kill her to prevent her from becoming the Dark One. Instead, we got Snow labelled as a murderer by mass murderer Regina. Edited July 3, 2017 by Rumsy4 5 Link to comment
tennisgurl July 3, 2017 Share July 3, 2017 I remember back when we got the Regina/Snow/Daniel backstory, I thought they were going to explore how Regina was just blaming Snow because she felt so powerless against her mother, and was so angry and hurt, she put all her blame, wrongly, on innocent little Snow, because she that she couldn't fight against her mother. That her storyline would be about finally acknowledging that her mother was the one who did her wrong, and not Snow, and she needed to stand up to Cora and her abuse. But, nope. Snows a bad evil kid for having good intentions and being manipulated by a super villain, and she deserves to have her entire life fall apart, and than go on to apologize for her "evil act" for years. Of course, this was back when I thought that things that happen in this show actually made sense, and that plot and character moved in a way that's set up, in a logical progression of events. I was so young. 5 Link to comment
Shanna Marie July 3, 2017 Share July 3, 2017 8 hours ago, KAOS Agent said: 4A wasn't bad, but "Heroes and Villains" was really where the writers stopped caring about writing a cohesive story where previous events in the show mattered. All that build up of Hook signaling Emma and her noticing something was off, Belle getting clues that all was not right with Rumpel and the dagger including the mirror flat out telling her so, Ingrid knowing the Rumpel was acting evilly and not telling Emma before she died, etc and it's all resolved when a heretofore unknown item falls off a shelf. Nothing mattered. Even Emma's issues about losing someone she cares about were nonexistent by the end since she did lose a loved one (Ingrid) and almost lost Hook and she had zero reaction to any of it. While 2B was certainly a start of the show veering off in the wrong direction, it really does seem like "Heroes and Villains" was the shark jump. Not only was it the awful case of ignoring Chekhov's Arsenal of things that had been set up and resolving everything with something just falling off the shelf (but at least the Belle side of things was explained with something falling off a shelf. We still don't know how Emma got from the revelation that Rumple lied about not having met Anna before -- Rumple lying is hardly a major newsflash -- to knowing that she needed to rush into town right that second because Hook was in danger in the clock tower), but it set up its own big aha moment that was never paid off. We never learned what the significance of the mansion full of blank storybooks was and what that had to do with anything, and yet that was treated as part of the big arc cliffhanger to kick off the next arc. We never learned what the link between Merlin/the Sorcerer and the Author was. The Author didn't seem to need the Official Storybook to write in, since both Isaac and Henry have written on any random paper and it was the pen that was magical, so why the house full of blank books? We never learned why the mansion came over in the second curse but not the first or why Merlin, who was in a tree that whole time, even had a mansion. They treated the revelation of all the blank books like it was a big, meaningful moment and a clue that needed to be followed up on, but it had absolutely no meaning whatsoever in the story they told. The sad thing about 4A is that while it wasn't bad in and of itself, it had absolutely no bearing on the series. You could pretty much delete that arc without changing anything other than Regina's relationship drama. Elsa's friendship meant nothing in the long run to Emma. Emma had to learn to control and use her magic yet again some more. Belle and Rumple got back together again in spite of his betrayal. The revelations about Ingrid and getting her memories of a happy foster home back had no real impact on Emma. The Charming family drama was swept aside and replaced by contrived drama. Though you could also say the same for all of season 5, since neither Emma nor Hook had any long-term effect from being Dark Ones. They didn't gain any insight into Rumple, never again used Emma's ability to sense the dagger (did Hook also have that ability?). Them having been Dark Ones wasn't even mentioned. Ditto with Hook having been dead. It never came up again, didn't affect the way he approached life or the way others dealt with him. Belle wasn't even surprised to find him alive. Big, earthshattering events like turning one of the main characters into a Dark One, and it didn't actually change anything in the status quo. You could skip that whole season except for the end of the finale and not be the least bit lost. The only long-term impacts were Zelena becoming sort of good (at least not an enemy) and Robin's death (except he came back). 7 Link to comment
CCTC July 3, 2017 Share July 3, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Rumsy4 said: I really expected Regina to have this realization that her mother was a terrible human being, and never loved her, and would choose to kill her to prevent her from becoming the Dark One. Instead, we got Snow labelled as a murderer by mass murderer Regina. I remember when Cora threw the nanny out the window looking for a reaction shot from Regina to realize what a monster her mother was or at least look conflicted, instead she was smiling smugly and seemed to have no problem with what her mother did. That was the one moment that made it difficult to easily accept Regina's woe is me victim afterwards. Cora would have been the perfect vehicle to redeem Regina and instead it just made her seem worse. As good of a job Hershey did in the sisters episode in the underworld, I still cringed a bit when she walked into the light. They never even really addressed most of the horrible things she did in her redemption, it was largely just bringing Zelina and Regina together (only to largely ignore that development the next year). 46 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said: The sad thing about 4A is that while it wasn't bad in and of itself, For the most part I liked 4A, but they really whiffed on the ending, by having the shattered sight curse be about 15 minutes of attempted humor and rushing through the ending that the ending did not really do justice to everything that led up to it. It is like they were distracted by the shiny object of the next arc and did not put much effort into the end of the current arc. Edited July 3, 2017 by CCTC 7 Link to comment
Rumsy4 July 3, 2017 Share July 3, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, KAOS Agent said: If you're going to write a serial drama, you can't have nothing be relevant at the end. Yeah. It's really bizarre, becasue one would think the payoff is what it's all about. But these writers do set-up after set-up only for those to have zero payoff or relevance. The Show is like a poorly made satire on existential nihilism. Edited July 3, 2017 by Rumsy4 6 Link to comment
TheGreenKnight July 3, 2017 Share July 3, 2017 (edited) On 7/2/2017 at 0:25 PM, superloislane said: I really didn't feel sympathy for any of the villains and I was a very casual watcher in the first 2 seasons. I was totally on Hook's side on getting revenge on Rumple because it was obvious who was in the wrong there but I never felt he was a poor woobie baby and I didn't even start to really like him as a character until season 3 and Captain Swan had a lot to do with that and because they started writing him as more than just Revenge!Pirate - other than Tallahassee, I actually think they wrote him pretty 1 dimensional in season 2. I also thought Emma leaving him on the beanstalk was absolutely the right thing to do - she'd be stupid if she took him along. I hated Hook and Rumpel equally in season 2. I thought, sure, Rumpel is scum, but so is Hook--just hotter. Overall, I thought Hook was a gnat compared to Cora and Rumpel. I never would've guessed he'd have gone on for 5 seasons or that I'd like him much more than Rumpel by the end. 3 hours ago, tennisgurl said: I remember back when we got the Regina/Snow/Daniel backstory, I thought they were going to explore how Regina was just blaming Snow because she felt so powerless against her mother, and was so angry and hurt, she put all her blame, wrongly, on innocent little Snow, because she that she couldn't fight against her mother. That her storyline would be about finally acknowledging that her mother was the one who did her wrong, and not Snow, and she needed to stand up to Cora and her abuse. This is the direction I thought we were going when Cora first appeared in the present scenes, too. The worst misstep of the series, imo. Edited July 3, 2017 by TheGreenKnight 2 Link to comment
Camera One July 3, 2017 Share July 3, 2017 (edited) Instead of "My mother was an evil sociopath and I was wrong to trust her while hurting so many innocent people", A&E trotted out a "My mother loved me! She really loved me!" as the revelation and arc. Silly us, Cora's biggest regret and crime was not letting Regina and Zelena become BFFs. Edited July 3, 2017 by Camera One 4 Link to comment
KingOfHearts July 3, 2017 Share July 3, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Camera One said: Instead of "My mother was an evil sociopath and I was wrong to trust her while hurting so many innocent people", A&E trotted out a "My mother loved me! She really loved me!" as the revelation and arc. Silly us, Cora's biggest regret and crime was not letting Regina and Zelena become BFFs. It's similar to Regina and Henry. In S1 and 2A, Henry would point out that Regina hurt innocent people and his family. Then later he was like, "You're not a villain, you're my mom! I should have stayed with you!" Whitewashing much? Edited July 3, 2017 by KingOfHearts 3 Link to comment
andromeda331 July 3, 2017 Share July 3, 2017 5 hours ago, superloislane said: I remember in the season 2 finale when Snow was arguing that they should risk the entire town to save Regina (who just tried to murder the town) because she killed her mother and Emma said that Snow had to do that and Snow said no there were other paths she could have taken and gives this big terrible speech. Even when Emma defends Snow killing Cora, it's supposed to show that she's in the wrong for thinking this just like she was apparently in the wrong for leaving Regina to die (which she wasn't). I remember watching this and thinking 'What other paths were there Snow? List them out I dare you!' but the writers have never actually been able to list out any alternatives to killing Cora. Yes, what other paths did Snow have? Cora was minutes away from becoming the Dark One. Cora with all that power? They had no other options. Snow gets the blame for killing Cora while Regina once again gets off scot free for her part. She was the one who sided with Cora and showed up to help Cora become the Dark One. Henry never once asks her about it? He left with Ruby right before it started, he knew very well Cora and Regina were coming and the Charmings were going to try and stop them. What was his reaction to that? Was he scared that Regina was going to kill his mother, grandmother, and grandfathers? Or stand by doing nothing while her mother killed them? 7 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said: It's similar to Regina and Henry. In S1 and 2A, Henry would point out that Regina hurt innocent people and his family. Then later he was like, "You're not a villain, you're my mom! I should have stayed with you!" Whitewashing much? Yes, he would. He pointed that out to her in the second episode of Season Two how she hurt people. When Graham died he was scared she would do something to Emma. Heck, he grabbed the apple away from Emma in the second episode of Season One because he knew Regina gave her poison apples. But suddenly it was all gone. She was his mom and he never should have brought Emma to Storybrook. He goes around saying Heroes shouldn't kill ever. But has zero problems with all the horrible stuff Regina did and does. Marion comes back? He practically blames Marion and not Regina who murdered Marion in the original timeline. 5 Link to comment
KingOfHearts July 3, 2017 Share July 3, 2017 (edited) Quote Yes, he would. He pointed that out to her in the second episode of Season Two how she hurt people. When Graham died he was scared she would do something to Emma. Heck, he grabbed the apple away from Emma in the second episode of Season One because he knew Regina gave her poison apples. But suddenly it was all gone. She was his mom and he never should have brought Emma to Storybrook. He goes around saying Heroes shouldn't kill ever. But has zero problems with all the horrible stuff Regina did and does. Marion comes back? He practically blames Marion and not Regina who murdered Marion in the original timeline. If they portrayed Regina more as strict and insecure instead of abusive, I could tilt my head and accept the retcon. But Regina knew what she was doing and prioritized the curse over her son repeatedly. Imagine how much more interesting her character would be if Mayor Mills was trying to turn over a new leaf and put the Evil Queen days behind her. But nope - she was still murdering her enemies and chasing Snow White to hell and back. Quote Yes, what other paths did Snow have? Cora was minutes away from becoming the Dark One. Cora with all that power? They had no other options. Snow gets the blame for killing Cora while Regina once again gets off scot free for her part. She was the one who sided with Cora and showed up to help Cora become the Dark One. Henry never once asks her about it? He left with Ruby right before it started, he knew very well Cora and Regina were coming and the Charmings were going to try and stop them. What was his reaction to that? Was he scared that Regina was going to kill his mother, grandmother, and grandfathers? Or stand by doing nothing while her mother killed them? There are so many instances that contradict Snow's guilt complex, it's not even funny. She didn't bat an eye when Emma left Hook to the ogres. She has never given her husband flack for killing Black Knights. If the writers really want Snow to be vindictive and toss her morals out the window, she needed to do something actually wrong. She needed to seek revenge where she didn't need to. Killing in self-defense does not fit what the episodes leading up to it were building. If you can't make Snow White tarnish her pure reputation, what's the point of giving her a dark spot on her heart? Why were they so desperate to kill Cora before she got all that power, but don't seem to give a crap that Rumple has it now? The only reason he hasn't gone on a killing spree is plot armor. He doesn't give a flip about what Belle thinks any more. Edited July 3, 2017 by KingOfHearts 2 Link to comment
Shanna Marie July 4, 2017 Share July 4, 2017 18 hours ago, KingOfHearts said: There are so many instances that contradict Snow's guilt complex, it's not even funny. She didn't bat an eye when Emma left Hook to the ogres. She has never given her husband flack for killing Black Knights. Nobody, including "Heroes don't kill people!" Henry, blinked an eye when David killed Percival. There was no "we should have found another way," no sympathy for his reasons. Regina didn't seem to feel so much as a flicker of guilt for her role in it. Back to my rewatch ... Although they're two of the series' better episodes, I found "The Shepherd" and "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter" infuriating in light of what followed them. "The Shepherd" is proof that they are capable of setting up and paying off a shocking twist and playing with expectations to create surprise. The moment when James dies is one of the best shocks in the series. It's perfectly set up after the opening scenes with confused David, so you think it's all going to be about him being kind of a jerk and learning a Valuable Lesson -- then, boom, he's dead, and it turns out that our David is actually not a prince, but rather a farmboy drafted into playing the role of a prince. I guess in its own way that's a fairytale trope, what with all those farmboys and woodcutters' youngest sons who end up marrying princesses, but it's not something Disney has done. The Disney princes are generally princes (well, until we got to Flynn/Eugene and Kristoff). I don't think anyone could have seen that twist coming based on what was set up, but it's the kind of thing that makes you go "oooh, now I see it" when you look back at earlier episodes. There was Charming's remark about Rumple liking twins, and then there was his concern over that simple ring rather than the princely jewels Snow stole. But then there was the setup for yet another episode buried in there, with the offhand remark about "what happened to Frederick" and Abigail's bored disdain for everything. It was another surprise when we got there and it turned out that Abigail wasn't just a bored, bitchy princess, that she was actually pretty cool. I think they retconned James a fair bit. He wasn't that obnoxious here. Maybe a bit full of himself, rather arrogant, but not the villain he was later shown to be. His men seemed to like and respect him. He and George seemed to have a good relationship, and George was genuinely grieving him as a son, so the outraged father of the wastrel son in season two and what was portrayed as an unhappy situation in season 6 during James's childhood don't seem to fit what we saw here. Meanwhile, these two episodes solidify my hatred of Regina. She shows a flicker of humanity when she realizes that Kathryn sees her as a friend, but that only makes it worse later when she orders Kathryn's death, not because she's mad at Kathryn, but as a way to frame Snow for murder. That's something that's really awful about Regina, that she puts her revenge ahead of the people who care about her. She's willing to screw over her best friend to get the curse, willing to murder her father to maintain the curse, willing to hurt Henry to score points against Emma, willing to murder Graham to spite Emma, willing to murder someone who truly considers her a friend in order to hurt Snow -- and all over something Snow did innocently as a child. And there's the hypocrisy of her talking to the Huntsman about how Snow ruins lives, but we've just seen the whole episode about her messing with the lives of David, Kathryn, and Mary Margaret. The whole thing is so narcissistic, where she treats everyone else like pawns in her own life, like they don't exist other than to serve her whims. I don't think you can blame all this on what happened to Daniel, which makes you wonder what she'd have been like if nothing had happened. Would she still have turned into another Cora eventually, someone who was never happy where she was and with what she had? An odd thing I noticed: the fake memory backstory for David and Kathryn was just about identical to the season six situation with Emma and Hook -- they'd had a fight, he went off to cool off and think but wasn't planning to leave for good, but then something happened to him, and she just assumed he left her and apparently didn't bother looking for him. I somehow doubt this was planned or meant to mean anything. More likely they're just being repetitive. But in Kathryn's defense, none of it had actually happened, since he was in a coma from the very start of the curse and it was all a fake memory. I wonder if Kathryn spent the whole curse thinking her husband had left her (without once thinking to check the hospital when she didn't hear from him? And the hospital or police never put out any kind of John Doe alert?) or if she got hit with all those memories suddenly when David woke up and Regina needed to intervene. I'm still wondering if Graham's accent was intentional or not because when his memories start coming back and he gets all emotional, the Irish is super-heavy. It's an entirely different accent from the way he talked most of the time. It sounds like he was trying to play Graham as American (the way Whale becomes American in the curse) and either the switch to Irish was deliberate to show the curse on him was breaking, or the intense emotion made his accent slip (he could either do American or actually act, but not both at the same time). Other than the really, really intense parts, he still sounded like he was either having to think hard to remember his lines or reading his lines off a cue card even when the Irish slipped in. The fact that Emma never learned or figured out the truth about what happened to Graham and/or that Regina never came clean, even as a hero, is one of their worst payoff failures. It makes their "friendship" fake because there's that bit of knowledge between them that should make a difference, it makes Regina's redemption questionable because she not only doesn't come clean but also isn't capable of connecting the dots with what she experiences. It's like he died in vain, just for the fact of a shocking moment, since that death ends up not meaning anything in the long term. It's also annoying that the Charmings named their son Neal and not Graham, especially after the mention that Emma (and Snowflake) wouldn't exist if it weren't for Graham sparing Snow, and he later saves Charming. He did far more than Neal for them. 5 Link to comment
Camera One July 4, 2017 Share July 4, 2017 (edited) Quote I don't think you can blame all this on what happened to Daniel, which makes you wonder what she'd have been like if nothing had happened. Would she still have turned into another Cora eventually, someone who was never happy where she was and with what she had? There's a huge dichotomy between Regina before Daniel and after, to the point where it's impossible to tell what Regina would have been like if not for Daniel's death. As a child, apparently, she was super tolerant and accepting (she could have been Young Snow there). I remember when I watched "The Stable Boy" for the first time, I just couldn't buy pre-Daniel Regina as completely innocent and good. She was willing to risk her own life to save Snow. Even if losing Daniel made her "snap", it only goes so far in explaining her complete change in personality. Hook and Rumple were slightly more believable in their transformations. But even so, it's tenuous. Hook's revenge against the King, becoming a pirate, was believable. But pillaging villages as he sang in the musical? Or killing someone like David's father? It's really a deeper problem with their "strategy" for writing most flashback backstories. Look at the character as is, and then write the complete opposite in the flashback origin story. It's win-win... shocking twist, and when they do diverge from this pattern (eg. Cruella), people trumpet the development as the best thing since sliced bread. Quote he still sounded like he was either having to think hard to remember his lines Again, I think that really worked for the character. I didn't jump to the conclusion that the actor didn't know his lines. Graham grew up in the forest, and his mind was a mess after being mind-controlled for so long, so it seemed right to me, that when he talked, he was slow and deliberate. Edited July 4, 2017 by Camera One 2 Link to comment
andromeda331 July 4, 2017 Share July 4, 2017 I'm sad that Graham and Ruby never got a scene together before or after the Curse. Imagine what they would have had in common! Graham: I was raised by wolves. Ruby: I am a wolf. 4 Link to comment
Writing Wrongs July 4, 2017 Share July 4, 2017 I'm in my Season 2 re-watch. I kind of wish that they would've just made Belle become Lacey when she crossed the town line. I don't understand why she was so insistent that she wasn't "Belle" if she couldn't remember anything at all. Who did she think she was in the asylum, I wonder? I love the scene in "Manhattan" when Neal and Henry find out they are father and son. I still get teary-eyed. I really want to know why Neal was dressed up like a businessman in the season opener. Was that for a real job or a scam? Link to comment
KingOfHearts July 4, 2017 Share July 4, 2017 Quote I'm in my Season 2 re-watch. I kind of wish that they would've just made Belle become Lacey when she crossed the town line. I don't understand why she was so insistent that she wasn't "Belle" if she couldn't remember anything at all. Who did she think she was in the asylum, I wonder? A few ideas come to mind. First, it's entirely possible the writers had not thought of Lacey yet. Second, the writers needed to put Belle on the backburner to give other plots the spotlight. (Cora/Regina, Rumple going after his son, Greg coming to town, etc.) Later, Regina used Lacey to get revenge against Rumple for not telling her Neal was Henry's father. It seemed like the writers were trying to reignite a feud between them, but that never went anywhere. As entertaining as I found Lacey to be, she ended up totally pointless. Link to comment
Shanna Marie July 4, 2017 Share July 4, 2017 3 hours ago, Camera One said: Even if losing Daniel made her "snap", it only goes so far in explaining her complete change in personality. So many of the other characters went through things like that (or worse) and didn't go off on violent revenge sprees. Even some of the ones who did go on violent revenge sprees weren't so intent on revenge that they killed or tried to kill the people they cared about who cared about them. Regina's reaction was so extreme and so misdirected that there had to have been something screwy with her to begin with, and this just happened to be the thing that set it off. If this hadn't happened, there may have been something else. As we say in the South, that girl's just not right. In general, this is a problem with the woobie villain, where they justify/explain a character's villainy based on one bad incident from their past. In reality, people who've gone through terrible things often become more compassionate because they understand the suffering of others and relate to it (see Emma and Snow, even David). And yet we seldom get a "woobie hero" treatment, even when the character would fit it. I don't feel like any of the Emma, Snow, or David flashbacks were designed to show us how sad their lives were, not in the way we got with Regina and Zelena. When we saw Snow watch her mother die, it was about setting up that candle and the "Snow is a murderer" arc, not "poor, sad Snow who lost her mother, and therefore that explains her later bad actions." 3 hours ago, Camera One said: It's really a deeper problem with their "strategy" for writing most flashback backstories. Look at the character as is, and then write the complete opposite in the flashback origin story. I think that may be where we got some of the weirdness with Hook's backstories. In season 3, when they started digging deeper into his past and not just his revenge against Rumple, he might not have still been a true villain, but he wasn't yet a hero. Therefore, to give us the complete opposite that would be shocking, we got Lt. Jones in "Good Form," the teatotaling, uptight Naval officer, who was the exact opposite of the rum-swilling, often inappropriate pirate. In 3B, when he was teetering on the line between hero and villain, we got the Missing Year flashback of him doing piratey things, but being ambivalent about it. By season 4, he's more firmly on the side of the heroes, so we got a villainous flashback, but he's still reasonably good up to a point before he does something awful. But in seasons 5 and 6 when he's full-on hero, we get him murdering his father and murdering a helpless man so we can get the shock effect. If you put the Hook backstories together in chronological order, you'd get whiplash -- abandoned child, useless drunk, uptight Naval officer, gallant pirate, fratboy pirate, would-be stepfather, cold-blooded murderer, initially sympathetic ally who can't let go of his revenge. The problem is that they tend to pull the "shocking" for established characters out of thin air and to fit the present-day part of the episode's theme or plot rather than really digging into the character. The father murder was just an excuse to find a way for Regina to be the one able to reach him (and even there it didn't work because they ended up cutting the flashback scene in which we saw that she knew what happened and they agreed never to mention it again). The murder of David's father was just to throw conflict and drama into Hook and Emma's relationship. 1 hour ago, Writing Wrongs said: I don't understand why she was so insistent that she wasn't "Belle" if she couldn't remember anything at all. Who did she think she was in the asylum, I wonder? I think the idea was that she never got a cursed identity, so when she crossed the town line, she lost her real identity, but there was nothing left to replace it, so she was blank until Regina gave her "Lacey." The dwarf who went over the town line forgot his real identity and was only the cursed identity, but Belle was always just Belle, so there was nothing left once Belle was erased. Before going across the town line, she was one of the few people who didn't really understand the modern world. She was excited about hamburgers and the concept of putting ice in tea. But, yeah, that was pointless, since being Lacey didn't seem to do anything but give her the 21st century knowledge and skill upload so that she had computer skills. What she did and what she saw Rumple doing with Lacey didn't affect her at all. I think it would have been better for her character if she'd just dumped Rumple when she learned from Hook about Rumple murdering his previous wife and saw Rumple trying to kill Hook. That would have done the same thing for separating her and Rumple and torturing Rumple without the character assassination it gave her of being so totally accepting of a man who murdered his wife and not being bothered by what she saw him do when she wasn't pulling him back from the brink with her disapproval. 3 Link to comment
superloislane July 4, 2017 Share July 4, 2017 2 hours ago, KingOfHearts said: As entertaining as I found Lacey to be, she ended up totally pointless. Ah the Lacey plot - I thought Lacey was the most fun Belle has ever been! I thought that whole story would end up with Rumple not being influenced by Lacey to do bad things because he loved Belle too much and he knew she wouldn't want that and maybe Lacey would fall for him because of this and kiss and boom! she remembers (this was back when I still liked Rumbelle) but that obviously never happened. A lot of what I think would be good for the characters and relationships and what I think would logically come from stories never seem to happen on this show... 1 Link to comment
Camera One July 4, 2017 Share July 4, 2017 Belle never addressed what she saw/went through as Lacey either. But then again, remember she was a terrible villain deep inside, choosing to save a rock over poor Anna, and then ignoring her warnings about Rumple and choosing to live with him. 4 Link to comment
KingOfHearts July 5, 2017 Share July 5, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Camera One said: Belle never addressed what she saw/went through as Lacey either. But then again, remember she was a terrible villain deep inside, choosing to save a rock over poor Anna, and then ignoring her warnings about Rumple and choosing to live with him. Why exactly does Belle have a problem with Rumple's misdeeds while also saying, "I love the dark parts"? Even Lacey was meant to illustrate Belle's own darkness, why didn't that come into play later? Rumpbelle would be 1000x more interesting if Belle secretly loved the beast more than the man. Edited July 5, 2017 by KingOfHearts 5 Link to comment
jhlipton July 5, 2017 Share July 5, 2017 On 7/2/2017 at 3:01 PM, Camera One said: At this point, he deserves to die at the end of every episode of Season 7. "Oh my God, you killed Rumple!" "THANKS!" On 7/3/2017 at 11:06 AM, tennisgurl said: I was so young. and naive! 1 Link to comment
tennisgurl July 5, 2017 Share July 5, 2017 (edited) You know what makes me really sad about this show in retrospect? As the series went on, as the universe got bigger, the scope of the show weirdly seemed to get smaller. In the first season, we saw the town as a real, decent sized town, with lots of characters and people who were a part of the story, even if they were just in the background or in supporting parts. Than as the season went on, we saw the glimpses of a larger multiverse, and the whole "everything fictional is real somewhere" thing that the show increasingly used. That made the universe even bigger, and made it seem like we were watching just one part of a MUCH bigger story, in a much larger universe. We had lots of characters, lots of stories, and lots of worlds to get stories from. Then, as the show went on, and the show became more narrowly focused on creating convoluted backstories for the main characters and focusing on their pet characters (mostly Regina and Rumple), the shows scope started to shrink, rather ironically, considering the universe itself was growing. By the time we got to the Author plot line (one of the shows greatest disappointments to me) we had this huge multiverse built up, with possibly countless worlds and characters to pull from (the show has DISNEY behind it, that's half of the entertainment world at this point!), and yet it just focused on this one small group of people, the shows pets, plus the Charmings, who the writers were basically stuck with, even as they clearly cared less about writing for them. Suddenly, everyone is related to the main characters, or has some big connection with them (Its a small multiverse after all!), all of our main characters have somehow met each other or affected each other without knowing it in the past, and the supporting characters just sort of disappear. We get glimpses of the larger multiverse, with a lot of one off characters and arcs in other worlds, but they just seem so small and without imagination. Like, without Abu and the Genie and the magic carpet, Aladdin is just Epcot Saudi Arabia. And, again, EVERYONE is connected to everyone, making all of these worlds seem tiny, and easy to travel around. Like, Ariel and Jasmine met up one time, and ran into each other AGAIN with Hook! What are the odds?! Plus, as I have said before, the show just lacks creativity when it comes to their awesome premise, focusing on a never ending series of forests to wonder through, instead of getting creative with cool characters and worlds. Like, what if our gang ended up in a sci fi world, where their magic didn't work? Or they actually went out into the real world and had to fight the magic that was totally there the whole time? It just felt like they just got stuck in their magical rut, where everything had to be connected to our main characters, so they couldn't really venture out into other genres like it seemed like they would. Look at the last episode. This is the implosion of the entire multiverse! This should be utterly huge and epic! Instead, it looks like a dozen people are affected by this in the entire multiverse. I get that its television and there are budget constraints and you cant get all the old characters and sets back without a ton of work, but it was like "oh look! Its people wearing costumes from some other place! Three of them! This big yall!", without any real sense of scale. Its just so weird how when the show was only one town, it felt a million times more epic and magical than the last season, where, while we had strait up magic fights in the streets and characters from all over the multiverse showing up, it felt like a minor skirmish between Rumple and his absentee mother. Edited July 5, 2017 by tennisgurl 8 Link to comment
Shanna Marie July 5, 2017 Share July 5, 2017 5 hours ago, tennisgurl said: I get that its television and there are budget constraints and you cant get all the old characters and sets back without a ton of work, but it was like "oh look! Its people wearing costumes from some other place! Three of them! This big yall!", without any real sense of scale. It was amusing how the way they showed that all the realms were back in place was with shots that didn't require bringing the cast back, like what was probably some leftover footage of Sven being snowed on and then a green light flitting around Neverland. Except did Tink ever go back to Neverland? They helped her escape, and the last time we saw her was in Storybrooke. If it was supposed to be Tiger Lily, getting her wings back, then would she have been green? I'm constantly surprised by how full the town seems in season one than in later seasons. Like, there was that whole houseful of people at the party Kathryn threw to welcome David home from the hospital. Where did those people go? Were they only friends because the curse made them friends? If so, it's a weird torture curse to give people a bunch of friends. If those people came to welcome David home from the hospital, why weren't they at the "naming ceremony" for his kid? At least Kathryn showed up for that. Where have those friends been during all the times everyone had to pull together? Or were they supposed to be all the random people who showed up for Emma and Hook's wedding -- people we've never seen them interacting with, since neither of them have friends outside the core group. In season one, it seemed like they had lots of friends in both worlds, but by season six, it was just the immediate family, Granny, Grumpy, and occasionally Archie and one of the other dwarfs. 7 Link to comment
Recommended Posts