A Thread for All Seasons: OUaT Across All Realms

[KingOfHearts]

 

She made some highly problematic choices when it came to her son, but her marriage to Rumple was causing them both pain and unhappiness. Doesn't divorce exist in the EF? Why are the only options either to run away or to murder your spouse? :-p

 

Yeah, Baelfire was the only part I found hokey about her leaving. For one, even in Manhattan, we never saw her really ever care about Bae. Even when Rumple asked her how she could abandon him, she attempted to evade the question. Other than that, I totally understand her acting in desperation. It's not like she didn't give Rumple chances. 

[Mathius]

Yeah, A&E explained Milah in a way that made sense in a podcast for "Manhattan" once: she truly loved Rumple because she thought he was a man who different from his father and she supported him in proving that. When he deserted the army and thus condemned her and Baelfire to the same fate he had (being known as the family of a coward), she believed that Rumple had deceived her all along and really WAS just like his father, hence "I never loved you" ("you" being the "real" Rumple she now believes in.)

As for Baelfire, it makes sense that her depression would inhibit her from forming a bond with him. She didn't love him like Rumple did, though she did seem to feel guilty for leaving him, especially if Hook is to be believed.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Mathius

[KingOfHearts]

Whenever I rewatch or think about this show, there's always a new parallel or reference I discover, whether intentional or not. Today I noticed how similar Henry Sr. is to the King of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland. He's short, dominated by his wife, and easy-going. He's obviously not a king, but I hadn't ever connect him with Cora's Queen of Hearts persona like that before.

 

Then there's Henry's family tree, which always surprises me. His grandma from Regina's side was engaged to his great grandpa from Emma's side, and his grandma on Neal's side is now dating his mom. The more you think about it, the creepier it gets.

Edited October 3, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Amerilla]

Looking back at "Manhattan" and "The Crocodile," I've become less and less and less impressed with how they wrote Milah.

I get what they're saying in the commentary, but what they presented was a character who initially didn't seem to care much about Rumple's self-image as a "coward" - she was far more concerned that he'd be killed and that their dreams of a family life together would be ruined. Then he makes a decision that, however "cowardly," preserves the life she is first shown as wanting....his self-mutilation allows him to survive to be with his family. He puts his desire to be a good father above his fear of being *like* his father (although that may be a difference without a distinction). But Milah is presented as doing a complete 180 - suddenly she cares much more about community response to his act than she does about him, doesn't care about his reasoning, can't even bear to be in the same room with him, and by the time she leaves him, she's openly belittling his continued existence in the world. It's too radical a shift in priorities to feel emotionally realistic. The idea that she sees him as being just like his father falls apart in retrospect of S3a, because how much could she have known about a man that vanished when Rumple was, what, 7? Other than being a crappy and absent father, could Malcolm have really had a long lasting reputation as a coward within the community? None of that was ever made clear.

I think, too, there's the show's usual problem of telling over showing. In "The Crocodile," there's a *talk* of this loss of status prompted by community scorn, but we never see that in action. They don't seem to be living a radically poorer life. He's apparently still able to keep them feed and clothed and sheltered. Milah clearly doesn't care if people in their community see her boozing it up with pirates in the middle of the day. When she's "kidnapped," someone in the community cares enough to alert Rumple. None of it speaks to this need to pull up stakes and start somewhere new. People in a desperately unhappy marriage, yes, but not outcasts within their little world.

So I've concluded that anything A&E & Company say about Milah is basically spin. She existed almost purely as a point of conflict between Rumple and Hook - not quite an object, but in no way a fully constructed character. You almost could have had them conflict over the "last" magic bean and had Hook want revenge just over his hand, no Milah necessary.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Amerilla

[Mathius]

So I've concluded that anything A&E & Company say about Milah is basically spin. She existed almost purely as a point of conflict between Rumple and Hook - not quite an object, but in no way a fully constructed character. You almost could have had them conflict over the "last" magic bean and had Hook want revenge just over his hand, no Milah necessary.

That probably would have been for the best, since then they wouldn't have had to make Rumple a wife killer. Seriously, that is one of the most disturbing things on his evil resume, ESPECIALLY now that he has another wife, and the fact that nobody ever addresses it (most glaringly Neal) doesn't help.

[Amerilla]

Honestly, I think Milah was so much a plot device in the mind of the writer's that they don't even consider that her murder had any greater meaning than as the trigger for the Hook/Rumple conflict. That's why Belle had no reaction, Nealfire had no reaction, because the writers don't seem to see it as anything other than a source of Hook-angst... which is now mostly invalidated since he's over it now.

[Jean]

I didn't like the whole Milah aspect because it's the one time it came off like the writers were going for "poor victim Rumple" even though he killed her and I hate that crap. They went out of their way to make Milah unlikeable while we have crippled Rumple hunching in the background and then that stupid twit Belle going around telling anyone who will listen that Rumple has a good heart. You think if someone cuts her tongue out she'd be more tolerable?

 

The father thing seems strange because the writers changed it in between S2 and S3 for Pan. I think it was in the podcast they used to do that they filmed a scene in Manhattan of kid Rumple witnessing his father get killed. He was supposedly a coward because he stole money and was going to run away and abandon his family but the guys he stole from caught up with him and killed him. Their definition of coward was abandoning family and responsibility which still held true for Pan.

[angelwoody]

Milah was a terribly conceived character for all of the above reasons. She wasn't a fully realized individual (like so many characters on this show who are supports to the main character's stories). She was initially a devoted wife, then a shrew, than a boozy barfly, then a child abandoner, than the love of Hook's life and someone so devoted that she gave up her life to save Hook.

People exist in the real world with multiple facets but in a character, you looks for some thread that ties all of it together into a whole that makes sense. She was never more than a plot device to advance the stories of the men she orbited. That's why the secondary characters (Bae/Neal & Belle) were never really allowed to react to what she did or what happened to her. Kind of a fail from a writing standpoint.

Edited October 3, 2014 by angelwoody

[Mathius]

The father thing seems strange because the writers changed it in between S2 and S3 for Pan. I think it was in the podcast they used to do that they filmed a scene in Manhattan of kid Rumple witnessing his father get killed. He was supposedly a coward because he stole money and was going to run away and abandon his family but the guys he stole from caught up with him and killed him. Their definition of coward was abandoning family and responsibility which still held true for Pan.

Yeah, the responsibility thing above all else is what made people deem Malcolm a coward. We even see in "Think Lovely Thoughts" that when he gets caught cheating, he's easily knocked to the ground where he just lies cringing, unable to do anything now that he has to face responsibility for his dishonest actions. That's why he's so obsessed with being a kid again, since kids get a free pass to avoid responsibility in their lives.

[myril]

People exist in the real world with multiple facets but in a character, you looks for some thread that ties all of it together into a whole that makes sense. She was never more than a plot device to advance the stories of the men she orbited. That's why the secondary characters (Bae/Neal & Belle) were never really allowed to react to what she did or what happened to her. Kind of a fail from a writing standpoint.

 

Unfortunately expect Marain to share that fate with Milah. Just that Marian is there as plot device to advance Regina's story in whatever way.

[RadioGirl27]

Unfortunately expect Marain to share that fate with Milah. Just that Marian is there as plot device to advance Regina's story in whatever way.

Yeah, and more when you think that Marian is a plot device for Robin who is himself a plot device for Regina.

[regularlyleaded]

I don’t know if it’s because it’s been ages since I’ve sat down to watch an episode of ONCE in it’s entirety and the time away has given me some sort of fresh perspective (I fast forwarded through all but 8 minutes of the S4 premiere — I don’t give a damn about Woegina, Rumpy’s graveyard monologue to the dead, or Rumbelle — so I don’t count that as watching an episode ), or because “White Out” just made it particularly obvious, but my goodness, this show has become clunky in it’s writing.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the hell out of “White Out”. I thought it was, in the overall, a solid episode and definitely well acted (though Gilmore, IMO, well, the poor kid is still the weak link in that department) and frankly, it’s been a long time since I’ve enjoyed an episode of ONCE this much. “White Out” showcased so much of Emma, who is the character I watch this show for, along with Hook and Charming whom I also enjoy watching (and I also really like Georgina Haig’s take on Elsa here and Emma’s interactions with her), and the episode had so many great moments and emotional beats between these, my favorite characters, that I was almost fangirling during the whole episode (yes, even despite the plot holes that inevitably took me out of the story every so often). Granted, my bar is set rather low for this show, but nonetheless, I really and truly enjoyed “White Out” and it reminded me why I loved this show and some of these characters in particular.

But with all that said, I couldn’t help but notice that the writing in general for this show has apparently fallen into this obnoxious pattern of treating the viewers like 7 year olds. I know this is something they've been doing for a while now, but they practically hit us over the head with the “theme” or “moral” of the story at. every. single. turn. with this week's episode ("White Out")! First in the flashbacks, and then again in the present day story line by having the same character from the flashback (David in this case) repeat, almost word for word, to another character (Elsa) in the present day whatever life lesson they learned in the flashback. And in “White Out” they even took the extra step that Charming repeated his life lesson AGAIN at the end of the episode! (And in case you missed it, as a bonus, they also had David give Emma the “don’t give up" message at the start of the dang episode, as a prelude to it all, by giving Emma parenting advice …which, by the way, came off as rather ridiculous to me because Emma has waaaaay more experience being a parent than he does. David basically has zero parenting experience, so the whole time Charming was giving Emma tips about dealing with a kid I was like does Charming know that Emma is talking about her human “kid”, Henry, and not a “kid” goat because what exactly is Charming basing all this parenting advice on? His many years as a shepherd where he had all of zero human kids to deal with??? Whatever, show.)

All that is to say, I’m not a moron, writers. I get it! You don’t need to hit me over the head with your “Moral of the Week” by repeating it 4 times, verbatim! I mean, talk about dropping anvils on the viewers. The only other way the writing could’ve been more annoying is if they actually had one of the actors speak directly to the audience during the credits with a “And today’s moral of the story, kids, is: …” as if this were a “Very Special Episode of Once Upon A Time”. Ugh.

I just don’t remember the show being this clunky and ham-fisted with it’s writing in the first season. From my recollection of season 1, I don’t ever remember being talked down to as if I were a kindergartener that needed the episode’s message spelled out in small words and repeated over and over so it would sink in. I feel like in S1 there was a subtlety and deftness to how they weaved the emotional theme of the flashbacks with the present day story line and that's something that we no longer really get in current episodes. For example in the S1 episode “True North”, at no point in watching that episode did I feel like someone was hitting me over the head with the fact that Emma identified with Ava and Nicholas’ plight as abandoned children. There were enough well placed emotional beats, and the flashback and the present day story made enough sense together that we could all see the through-line without it being spelled out for us. The show was smart because the message was contained in what wasn’t being said. The intentional subtext translated into the text. And the same can be said about "Red-Handed", "Hat Trick", and other episodes in S1.

The writing in S1 was clearly capable of being sophisticated and treating the audience like they had brains. But now? It’s just not. I think that's what makes it really baffling for me -- the stark difference in S1 writing standards versus present day writing. I can’t decide if this difference is because the writers have decided (post S1) that the entire audience has the intellectual capacity of 7 year olds, or because coming up with and scripting 22 episodes per year for 3-4 years is understandably draining, or because they’ve lost some confidence in their ability to tell the story and get the message they want to get across in 42 minutes, and therefore the writers have started to rely on Sesame Street tactics of repeating the message over and over so the “kids” get it (and most especially when their "message" flies in the face of the actual story they've presented *cough*Regina's a Hero!*cough*).

Take for example “White Out”. It’s painfully obvious (because they said it repeatedly) that the message the writers wanted to get across was that “The impossible fights are they one’s worth fighting because surviving isn’t living, and especially don’t give up on the one’s you love.” Great. Seems like a nice message. But, because the flashback story they came up with for David didn’t really line-up with that message (because someone losing their battle with alcoholism is not the same as letting yourself be cowed by a bully, and hell, a bully isn’t quite the same as a warlord with her own private army! So ultimately the intended message doesn’t quite apply), the writers were forced to rely on having the characters repeat the theme over and over because there was no rational way for anyone in the audience to have naturally come to the conclusion they wanted. It was like the writers desperately wanted to fit a round peg into a square hole and resorted to repeatedly hammering at it until they made it fit. But even then anyone could plainly see it was forced and didn’t belong where they had forcibly placed it. And “White Out” is just a recent example of this habit the writers have formed. So...I don’t know. I don’t know what happened to this show. Their basic ideas are generally really good (I mean, Bo Peep as a warlord? I think that’s actually rather clever) but their execution is just inept.
 
I liked “White Out”. The emotional stories are there wanting to be told and (IMO) the actors are really nailing their parts. Indeed, at one point I laughed at myself because I started feeling cold just by watching Morrison’s performance, she had me so convinced she was freezing to death. But man, the writing and the dialogue are just…not. there. Sometimes I feel like the show is better if I watch it on mute. For example, in David’s speech to Elsa through the walkie-talkies, the dialogue was clumsy, but if you mute the sound in that scene the whole thing is almost 10x better by just watching the actors do their part. From David trying desperately to get through to Elsa and have her conquer her fear, Elsa trying to find it within herself to control her powers and save Emma, Hook just panicked that Emma is dying, and Emma fighting the freezing cold and just trying to stay conscious let alone alive, all of those emotions were so palpable in everyone’s performance that you didn’t need to hear what they were saying. (Heck, the final scene at the loft was better watched than listened to what with David's cheesy "We never give up!" declaration). But the writing? Oy, the writing. It’s just so damn awkward and ham-fisted more often than not that it, sadly, makes the show less than it could be.
 
(P.S. - I wasn't sure whether to put this in the "S04E02 - White Out" episode thread or here in the "All Seasons" thread, but I feel like my overall point is more about the show in general so I posted here).

Edited October 7, 2014 by regularlyleaded

[Camera One]

I didn't like the episode as much as you did, but the reason was encapsulated in your post.  I really enjoyed Emma/Elsa, and as usual, the actors gave it their all. I agree the writing in Season 1 was much more subtle and skilled.  I think that the "fitting a round peg into a square hole" was much worse in this episode than usual.

 

The writers wanted to get across was that “The impossible fights are they one’s worth fighting because surviving isn’t living, and especially don’t give up on the one’s you love.”

 

One problem was the message alone was already very clunky, plus there were three separate parts to it - the impossible fights are worth fighting, surviving isn't living and don't give up on the ones you love.  Usually, the message is much more simple, like have hope, or enjoy the little moments in life, and the plotline can fit that type of message much more naturally.  The Bo Peep situation as they laid it out didn't fit that message.  Fighting an impossible fight with no strategy and little realistic possibility of winning (which is what would have happened if Bo Peep actually had an army) is not going to improve anyone's life.  It's just stupid and impulsive.   How does refusing to fight Bo Peep have anything to do with "giving up on the ones you love"?  That element was supposed to be "covered" by the backstory of the alcoholic father.  What does Charming having an alcoholic father have to do with the Bo Peep situation and his lack of courage?  Charming didn't even give up on his father... he hoped he would pull through.    Was Charming "surviving but not living"?  If so, what was Charming's idea of living?  None of that was actually explored and this flashback was supposed to shed light on Charming's personality and character origins and journey.

 

Basically, they wanted Charming to "learn" the lesson, and then recite it to Elsa, who also supposedly learned the lesson in the animated movie from Anna.  Thus, the double/triple repetition.  Plus I'm not even convinced that those were the lessons that Anna imparted to Elsa in the "Frozen" movie to begin with, aside from the "don't give up on the ones you love".  

 

There were some episodes with this level of simplification of messaging in Season 3, but sometimes, I don't mind it and I can even be moved by it, if the parallels make sense, at the very least.  Unfortunately, that just wasn't the case for me in this episode, so I personally thought it was much clunkier than usual, maybe because they were also trying to fit a Frozen round peg into the Once square peg which could have been done if the parallels were better thought out.  

Edited October 7, 2014 by Camera One

[stealinghome]

I honestly think that after S1's massive success, whether by their own inclination or network fiat, the writers started writing the show for kids. S1 was an adult show that had a lot of appeal for children. Since S2, they've been writing a kids' show that they try to make have appeal for adults. (And frankly, I think that, along with the Woegina Permaboner, has been the downfall of the show, because IMO it is strongly tied to the PLOT PLOT PLOT problem.)

[ShadowFacts]

 

One problem was the message alone was already very clunky, plus there were three separate parts to it - the impossible fights are worth fighting, surviving isn't living and don't give up on the ones you love.  Usually, the message is much more simple, like have hope, or enjoy the little moments in life, and the plotline can fit that type of message much more naturally.  The Bo Peep situation as they laid it out didn't fit that message.  Fighting an impossible fight with no strategy and little realistic possibility of winning (which is what would have happened if Bo Peep actually had an army) is not going to improve anyone's life.  It's just stupid and impulsive.   How does refusing to fight Bo Peep have anything to do with "giving up on the ones you love"?  That element was supposed to be "covered" by the backstory of the alcoholic father.  What does Charming having an alcoholic father have to do with the Bo Peep situation and his lack of courage?  Charming didn't even give up on his father... he hoped he would pull through.    Was Charming "surviving but not living"?  If so, what was Charming's idea of living?  None of that was actually explored and this flashback was supposed to shed light on Charming's personality and character origins and journey.

 

I totally agree.  This was entirely too preachy for me, and it reminds me of Oprah-think.  If you just believe in yourself and put good things out into the universe, you will get good things back, blah blah blah.  It does not comport with reality, I mean tell that to a starving kid in Africa or Nelson Mandela, for that matter.  What do people like that put out into the universe to get back starvation and imprisonment for decades?  It's just insulting.  And as you said, the messages were not even applicable to David's situation.  Let alone do they become life-changing lessons from a perky girl who spends one night in your barn.

[Curio]

I couldn’t help but notice that the writing in general for this show has apparently fallen into this obnoxious pattern of treating the viewers like 7 year olds. I know this is something they've been doing for a while now, but they practically hit us over the head with the “theme” or “moral” of the story at. every. single. turn. with this week's episode ("White Out")! First in the flashbacks, and then again in the present day story line by having the same character from the flashback (David in this case) repeat, almost word for word, to another character (Elsa) in the present day whatever life lesson they learned in the flashback.

Yes, this. Another really bad example of the writers doing this was when they showed the flashback of Hook and Tink in Neverland during Going Home. They made Hook say the clunky line about how he only risks his life for two things: "love and revenge." But then literally 5 minutes later in Storybrooke, they force Tink to repeat that same line nearly verbatim before he runs out to be a decoy for the shadow. And then they basically repeat the exact same line again when Tink tells Hook the real reason he risked his life. So they ended up repeating the same line nearly 3 times in a matter of less than 10 minutes.

 

And then to put the cherry on top of the anti-subtle writing, Tink literally has to come out and say: "You did that for Emma." Wow, I had no idea - thank you for clearing that up, Tink! You could have just left it at "hey, I know the real reason you risked your life out there." And then Hook could play coy about it and then another character like Charming or Neal mentions Emma's name in another unrelated conversation so the audience can put 2 and 2 together. Like, is it really that hard to be subtle, writers? 

[KingOfHearts]

I honestly think that after S1's massive success, whether by their own inclination or network fiat, the writers started writing the show for kids. S1 was an adult show that had a lot of appeal for children. Since S2, they've been writing a kids' show that they try to make have appeal for adults. (And frankly, I think that, along with the Woegina Permaboner, has been the downfall of the show, because IMO it is strongly tied to the PLOT PLOT PLOT problem.)

It became cartoony because they stopped limiting the amount of fantasy. The flashbacks on the show have always been cheesy, but bringing it to the present imbalanced everything. They took away most of the real world elements S1 had, which made The Land Without Magic pretty irrelevant. Storybrooke became just EF with cell phones.

Removing cursed personalities and removing the We Are Both stuff was a mistake too. It took away a lot of the premise of the show, and slowly asassinated a lot of the characters. (Like Snow... RIP, Mary Margaret.)

[Amerilla]

I think every single theory here is more than plausible. I would add that post S1, the figures they've chosen to insert are less and less traditional "fairy tale" characters than from the modern Disney stable. So in S2 we get Mulan and a pirate called Hook who is really more a Pirates of the Caribbean knock-off than JM Barrie's character. In S3 you get Pan and Tink and Wendy and Wicked and Dorothy and Glinda. Now: Frozen. They seem to be trying to expand their audience base by skewing to families with younger kids who have been suckling the Disney teat since infancy, while trying to stay "edgy" enough to hold the 18-49 demo. And it just does not work.

Given that they're spending 9 or 10 episodes on a what was less a movie than a miracle of modern marketing aimed at 7 year old girls, I think that "bash us over the head with the 'message of the week'" is going to continue.

[KingOfHearts]

 

So in S2 we get Mulan and a pirate called Hook who is really more a Pirates of the Caribbean knock-off than JM Barrie's character. In S3 you get Pan and Tink and Wendy and Wicked and Dorothy and Glinda.

I agree to preferring more classical characters. But I believe you can insert more modern fairy tales without making them family friendly. Peter Pan was pretty dark for the most part, for example. Sleeping Beauty and Mulan could have been much more mature, but they didn't go there. However, some characters, like Frozen, are so iconic presently that a darker twist would be considered inappropriate for the generation still watching the original material. The older fairy tales are known well by adults, so they can appreciate serious tones better.

[Jean]

I found S1 a lot more family and kid friendly. You can't get more kid friendly than Emma helping whatever fairytale character of the week get their "happy" ending. There were some sinister undertones but nothing more than what a Disney film would have. But at the end of episode there was at least a feel good moment. I don't know, the show just had a bit of whimsical feel to it. I think White Out is closest in tone to S1 than anything from the last 2 seasons, except for 3x21-22 but since those were essentially retelling Snow Falls I don't think it counts. The writing was clunky and I do think that has something to do with catering to the Frozen crowd but since they are bringing in the eyeballs, it's probably a prudent move.

 

S2 and S3 I thought were more for the adults. The entire tone of the show just changed. It was just relentlessly dark and depressing and full blown soap opera. I think that's their idea of what high brow drama was supposed to be. I don't know if it was mainly the writing that was driving it or the actors (all of them) were just exhausted but there's a noticeable difference in energy. If you compare S1 imp Rumple to anything post that, even when he's chewing scenery, it still comes off "low energy." That goes for the rest of them too. S1closed off Emma was a lot less emo and had 100% more personality than S2/S3 closed off Emma, except again for the finale. I won't even talk about the ruin that is left of Snow. Poor Ginny.

 

I'll have to see how the rest of this Frozen half-season plays out but I wonder if it's because the focus on the Charmings is easier to play a more lighter tone than with the focus on the black hole and Rumple.

[stealinghome]

The show just had a bit of whimsical feel to it. I think White Out is closest in tone to S1 than anything from the last 2 seasons, except for 3x21-22 but since those were essentially retelling Snow Falls I don't think it counts.

I totally agree with this, and posted something similar in the White-Out thread. 4x02 was just *fun*, which this show hasn't been in a while (also it let the good guys actually have a real victory, which also hasn't happened since S1). IMO, especially in Season 2, the writers tried way too hard to be be like "Look at us! Aren't we clever! Aren't our twists so ~INTERESTING!" instead of just writing interesting, clever things. I think they both bought into their own hype and tried too hard. Perhaps what's helped them in S4 so far* is precisely the fact that Disney is keeping such a tight rein on the Frozen characters? Adam and Eddie pretty much CAN'T do any big, shocking twists with the core Frozen people, and therefore the core cast as they relate to the Frozen people.

*Despite 4x01 being lackluster, it's still better than most of S2 and large parts of S3.

There were some sinister undertones but nothing more than what a Disney film would have.

Disagree. S1 Regina keeping Graham as a sex slave is, if not the creepiest and most f-ed up thing we've seen on this show, at least in the top 5. We would NEVER get that on the show these days. Edited October 7, 2014 by stealinghome

[regularlyleaded]

It became cartoony because they stopped limiting the amount of fantasy.

I agree the show has become more cartoony, but I don’t think the root problem is because of the amount of fantasy elements or the use of non Disney fairy tales (plus the only non-Disney thing they’ve really done is Wizard of Oz and the problem with that arc had nothing to do with the non-Disney elements). I’ve watched plenty of shows steeped in fantasy and it doesn’t bother me one bit. There are ways to handle it and make it work for the story you want to tell. I think the root problem with ONCE is that the show feels cartoony because the writing for most of the characters (and most especially for the ones that the audience can most easily connect with, i.e. the non-villains named Regina or Rumple) has been reduced to the writing quality of two-dimensional cartoons. The show almost refuses to let anyone have proper emotional reactions to things happening around them. No one is given time to talk to each other, to relate information to each other, to absorb information, or let alone to appropriately react to what’s happening to them. I think stealinghome linked to an article (in another thread) that talked about how important it is that the writing “maintain the emotional reality of it’s characters” (it was in reference to Sleepy Hollow), but it’s definitely something that has completely fallen by the wayside for this show and not given a second thought because PLOT! Woegina! PLOT! The show gives very little time for characters who aren’t Woegina to unpack and process their emotional realities.

The show feels cartoony more often than not because the characters (not named Regina) are not allowed to have human responses because “Plot”. And hilariously, the one character whose emotional outbursts, whose highs and lows and everything in between we are always witness to is Woegina, the textbook sociopath with narcissistic traits who feels nothing for anyone but herself. It’s complete madness that the character whose emotions we’re most subjected to is the character incapable of empathy or sympathy for anyone else! Woegina’s “redemption” has become the entire series’ “message”/“theme” that the show writers want to get us to believe by repeating it over and over and over Sesame Street style, even though it makes absolutely no sense, and that it’s most definitely a case of a round peg being forcibly hammered into a square hole. And in doing so they’ve stifled every other character’s organic and logical reactions to it all because they want to get us to buy Regina’s redemption story (or “Nealfire is a Hero!” story, or “Rumpy has a good heart, we swear!” story, or whatever nonsense they’ve decided) no matter how contrary it is to logic and reasoning, and authentic human emotional responses be damned. They’re gonna force this kool-aid down our throats even if it kills them or us. The harder the writers try to force these inauthentic messages the less life like the other characters become and the worse they make the whole show.

(That’s probably why “White Out” worked for me as a good episode. Minimal time subjecting the audience to the “The remorseless Villains are the heroes! They just need a hug” message. JFC, the writers even had Elsa acknowledge that she didn’t deserve their thanks for saving Emma because she was the one that had endangered Emma in the first place, so apparently the writers aren't completely ignorant of what’s happening. But of course, they managed to pair another message (“surviving isn’t living, don’t give up, blah, blah, blah fish cakes) with a story that doesn’t match the message…I guess we’re just doomed to be preached to with complete nonsense no matter what).

 

ETA: I agree that "White Out" is the closest the show has felt to being like the S1 show I fell in love with (outside of the S3 two episode finale), but I really think that has to do less that it's written to "kids" and more that the show let go of, for at least 40 minutes, that stupid "Poor, Poor downtrodden Villain *sad face*. Will no one think of the poor villains?!" crap and let the focus stay on characters that were the heart of the show in S1 and that should still be the heart of the show now, namely Emma and her family.

Edited October 7, 2014 by regularlyleaded

[KingOfHearts]

 

I agree the show has become more cartoony, but I don’t think the root problem is because of the amount of fantasy elements or the use of non Disney fairy tales (plus the only non-Disney thing they’ve really done is Wizard of Oz and the problem with that arc had nothing to do with the non-Disney elements). I’ve watched plenty of shows steeped in fantasy and it doesn’t bother me one bit. There are ways to handle it and make it work for the story you want to tell. I think the root problem with ONCE is that the show feels cartoony because the writing for most of the characters (and most especially for the ones that the audience can most easily connect with, i.e. the non-villains named Regina or Rumple) has been reduced to the writing quality of two-dimensional cartoons.

 

While I agree characters have become two-dimensional, the writers are poor at worldbuilding and pure fantasy. Thus, when it took over the whole show, everything went downhill. Fantasy is fine if you can do it correctly, but A&E have managed to mess up and taint many different fairy tales and universes. Like Oz, for example - it didn't have to be cartoony, bout they made it that way because of the cheesy plot elements and lack of three-dimensional characters.

 

Pure fantasy is not a bad thing, but it never works on this show with these writers.

Edited October 7, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[regularlyleaded]

Ya, I'm not saying the lackluster/non-existent world-building on this show isn't a problem. It absolutely is. I just think the root problem (or the bigger problem) and the issue that perhaps exacerbates all the other issues with this show, is that they don't deal with the characters (who aren't Regina) emotions authentically, and so that inauthentic treatment, the glossing over and hand-waving of what should be pivotal emotional moments (because they can't be bothered with anything that doesn't relate to Her Majesty) makes all the other problems all that more glaring, IMO.

[KingOfHearts]

 

I just think the root problem (or the bigger problem) and the issue that perhaps exacerbates all the other issues with this show, is that they don't deal with the characters (who aren't Regina) emotions authentically, and so that inauthentic treatment, the glossing over and hand-waving of what should be pivotal emotional moments

 

Definitely. This show, in the emotions area, doesn't know how to pace itself. The writers don't want to deal with emotional aftermath, so they skip it by using PLOT PLOT PLOT. That sort of happened in 2x01. Instead of dealing with a real town fallout and the Charmings reuniting, they went straight for the Team Princess adventure and bookended character-centrics. (The Doctor, Child of the Moon) 2A wasn't necessarily bad, but they skipped out on a lot of potential for payoff. It seemed like most of the events of S1 were irrelevant.

 

I won't go into the Missing Year, because that would be a whole essay, but 3B was full of skipping character reactions.

Edited October 7, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[regularlyleaded]

Really?  Then you misremember that episode, it was one of S1's absolute worst, with the message of "FOSTER SYSTEM BAAAAAAAD!" being hammered in repeatedly by Emma, making her identification with Ava and Nicholas glaringly obvious, not to mention her coming out and stating her comparison to their father as to how she felt she wasn't ready to be a parent.  

 

Subtle that episode ain't. 

Please note that I stated that "I" ("me" personally, not "you") felt that episode wasn't as "hammer to the head" direct with conveying it's message than current day episodes. Not to the extent that they have a character repeat verbatim the theme over and over like a Sesame Street muppet, so yes, in my opinion "True North" was more subtle than what we get nowadays from this show. I'm not misremembering anything, I just apparently don't agree with your interpretation of what that episode was getting at. I don't think the overall thematic message of the episode was "Foster System Baaaaaaaad!". That is your opinion and you are more than welcomed and entitled to think that, but please don't be rude about it and tell me that I'm misremembering what is essentially your opinion as if it were a fact. I most definitely don't recall you ever being inside my head. Those other voices are most decidedly not yours.

[Mathius]

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: the most vocal voices during S1 (not the majority, as it would appear, but vocal) are probably to blame for everything the show became afterward. Opinions like "Storybrooke is boring, we want more Fairy Tale Land", "Mary Margaret and David are so annoying", "Emma is dull", "we want more Regina and Rumple", "the story isn't moving fast enough and not enough shit is happening, break the curse already"......they were everywhere. These same people praised the start of S2 because "shit was finally getting done"....if I were the producers of this show and heard all this, I'd probably decide on a more plot and action-heavy route as well. Blaming the writers can only go so far, sometimes audience reactions need to be factored in, since they are a BIG part of show business.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Mathius

[KingOfHearts]

 

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: the most vocal voices during S1 (not the majority, as it would appear, but vocal) are probably to blame for everything the show became afterward.

 

Same thing happened in 3A. People were complaining it was too slow, then 3B came rushing through like a freight train with no stops. It went from one extreme to another.

Edited October 7, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Mathius]

Same thing happened in 3A. People were complaining it was too slow, then 3B came rushing through like a freight train with no stops. It went from one extreme to another.

 

Exactly. And while one could say it was because it was mostly set in the perpetually dark jungle of Neverland and not in Storybrooke and that bored people, I must repeat that Storybrooke itself caught flak back in the day because the Enchanted Forest was seen as more interesting.  It reinforces to me that the producers (all of them, not just Adam and Eddy) are listening to the wrong crowd: just because voices are vocal doesn't mean they're a majority feeling (ANOTHER example: so, so, SO many Evil Regal voices whining in Season 2 about how poor Regina is always mistreated...that was certainly "rectified" in Season 3 now, wasn't it?)

 

The show almost refuses to let anyone have proper emotional reactions to things happening around them. No one is given time to talk to each other, to relate information to each other, to absorb information, or let alone to appropriately react to what’s happening to them.

 

Another reason I adore 3A; there was alot more of that, especially in the first half of it, since the stakes weren't really all that high until "Dark Hollow" so characters got to talk, react and bond.

 

I agree that "White Out" is the closest the show has felt to being like the S1 show I fell in love with (outside of the S3 two episode finale), but I really think that has to do less that it's written to "kids" and more that the show let go of, for at least 40 minutes, that stupid "Poor, Poor downtrodden Villain *sad face*. Will no one think of the poor villains?!" crap and let the focus stay on characters that were the heart of the show in S1 and that should still be the heart of the show now, namely Emma and her family.

 

Once again, blame the vocal minority. Regina and Rumple are by far the most popular characters online, and thus were given more screentime and priority. 

Edited October 7, 2014 by Mathius

[Jean]

 

the most vocal voices during S1 (not the majority, as it would appear, but vocal) are probably to blame for everything the show became afterward.

 

That's still on the producers if they were dumb enough to listen to the loud online opinions, which probably makes up 0.0001% of their viewers. Ratings speak for themselves. I think they did listen to some of them, the part that they themselves agreed with in the first place. 

 

I'll say S1 came off like a network managed show and S2-S3 is more in line with how A&E envisioned and want their show to be. It's equally obvious that 4A is Disney corp-Frozen vision driven/managed.

[Shanna Marie]

That's still on the producers if they were dumb enough to listen to the loud online opinions, which probably makes up 0.0001% of their viewers. Ratings speak for themselves.

And the ratings plummeted when they listened to the loud online opinions.

 

My non-scientific polling has found that most people who gave up the show did so because of the treatment of Regina -- turning her into a "victim" at the expense of the heroes and letting her take over the show and chew the scenery. So they may have satisfied a tiny corner of the audience, the one that Tweets the loudest, while turning off a lot of mainstream viewers who just watch the show and don't social media about it.

 

But I think that a lot of the problem is that these showrunners lack either the skill or the discipline to sustain a longrunning story. To sustain a series like this, with so many character arcs taking place at multiple times, it requires a lot of organization. You need good worldbuilding as a foundation and a strong sense of the rules of your world. There's still some flexibility, as it's not set in stone until it makes it into a story, but you get more consistency if you build your world ahead of time and try to force yourself to abide by those rules unless you can reason out loopholes for making things happen the way you need them to. You need to track each of your characters and have a sense of their backstories so that when you do a flashback, it makes sense. Again, you don't need all the details and you can change details as you go, but you need to know something about their arcs. And you need to maintain a timeline. It can stay pretty vague, just keeping clusters of events together (like Belle meeting Grumpy in the tavern when he was still Dreamy, which was after she left Rumple and before he met Snow), but the moment you give it any kind of timestamp, you have to stick a pin in it and commit to events around that being at that time -- like giving Roland's age, when we know Marian was heavily pregnant with him while Belle was still Rumple's captive. As you move closer to the present, you need a calendar rather than a timeline, and if you're covering multiple episodes in a single day, you need a day planner to chart events.

 

There's no evidence they've done any of this work, and the longer the show goes on, the more the lack of a solid foundation shows as the story flies out of control and starts contradicting itself.

[Jean]

 

Rumple are by far the most popular characters online, and thus were given more screentime and priority.

 

I don't think this is true. Rumple has less screentime than the 3 ladies and may be on par with Hook and Charming. It's of better quality but I can't say for sure if it's writing or just Robert's talent is making pure trash look mediocre. I tend to think the latter. I don't think A&E are particularly enamored of Rumple either, more like they just respect Robert and is desperately trying to find something for him to do but I don't think I'll ever say they're writing Rumple fanfiction.

 

His importance to the canvas has also diminished. He drove the story for the most part in S1 both in the fairybacks and present day. His relationship to each of the other main characters were central to the story. None of that is true anymore.

 

I keep going back to Rumple and Neal and yes a large part of that is they have no interest in Neal but if Rumple was that important they can use Neal as a prop. They don't even bother to do that. I don't think they're all that interested in Snow or Emma and yet they managed to squeeze in an infinite amount of scenes of those 2 propping the soul sucker.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Jean

[Dani-Ellie]

And the ratings plummeted when they listened to the loud online opinions.

 

Absolutely.

 

Online fandom is always going to be the loudest because the casual viewers, by defintion, are casual. They're not on the Once Facebook page, they're not tweeing, they're not Tumblr-ing. They just watch it from week to week and forget about it in between. And obviously, you want people talking about and thinking about your work, but from a longevity standpoint, you want the show to do as well as it can for as long as it can, too. A sharp nosedive in ratings should be troubling. I think it would behoove Adam and Eddy to take a look at what was going on in-show when ratings started really dropping. There was clearly something happening that made a whole heck of a lot of people tune out.

 

I personally think it was a combination of things. Lack of follow-through to the emotional sides of the stories, over-focus on certain characters while dropping others to the background, expanding the worlds fast and furious without properly defining or dealing with the expansion. I heard from two different people last week that they both tuned out around the same time (late season 2) because there was just too much going on to keep up with. For people who don't sit there and analyze the hell out of every episode, I'm sure zooming the plot along at the speed this show does is just overwhelming.

[stealinghome]

That's still on the producers if they were dumb enough to listen to the loud online opinions, which probably makes up 0.0001% of their viewers.

This. I also think the producers listen really selectively, in that there are a lot of ideas on this show that could work but don't because they're poorly executed--but instead of executing better, the writers ditch the whole idea all together. Sometimes that's the right move--for example, by the end of S2, the whole Tamara/Greg/Home Office storyline was so wretched that scrapping it was totally the right way to go. But S1 Storybrooke is the opposite case. Storybrooke was boring and slow for a lot of S1, but you know why? Not because it was a bad thing to have, but because it was poorly written. The Mary Margaret/David/Kathryn triangle was awful by the end not because the idea was bad in theory, but because of the crap execution! David Nolan lumbered around like a zombie for like seven episodes mumbling "we'll find a way to be together...we'll find a way to be together" like he'd never heard of divorce--and Mary Margaret never brought it up either. And yet neither of them acted like it was some foreign concept when Kathryn finally brought it up. Emma's attitude toward the curse, magic, etc, became tiresome not because she didn't believe, but because the writers zoomed her back and forth between closer to belief and staunch nonbelief with no organic growth. Etc. There's a large gap in the middle of S1 where Storybrooke was boring because we basically had the same thing happen in it over and over for like 6 episodes straight. But the solution to the Storybrooke stuff wasn't to ditch Storybrooke as we knew it--it was to write Storybrooke better. But the writers seem to be unable to grasp the concept of "writing better," so.

Edited October 7, 2014 by stealinghome

[Crimson Belle]

There's a large gap in the middle of S1 where Storybrooke was boring because we basically had the same thing happen in it over and over for like 6 episodes straight. But the solution to the Storybrooke stuff wasn't to ditch Storybrooke as we knew it--it was to write Storybrooke better. But the writers seem to be unable to grasp the concept of "writing better," so.

 

We've seen that trend continue.  We have some big setup for an episode or three, then the heroes bumbling around while the bad guy lords it over them for 4-6 episodes, then an episode or two of "payoff" where everything that happened in the middle of the mini-season is meaningless.

[KingOfHearts]

 

My non-scientific polling has found that most people who gave up the show did so because of the treatment of Regina -- turning her into a "victim" at the expense of the heroes and letting her take over the show and chew the scenery. So they may have satisfied a tiny corner of the audience, the one that Tweets the loudest, while turning off a lot of mainstream viewers who just watch the show and don't social media about it.

 

After all the nastiness Regina pulled in S1, a lot of viewers were surprised at how quickly she decided to redeem herself. What really turned viewers off though was when she began flip-flopping after Cora came to town. Writers can take their liberties, but viewers get a bit thrown when certain things aren't consistent... like villain comeuppance. Especially since this show is centered so much around good versus evil. Watching her go back and forth was boring.

 

 

I heard from two different people last week that they both tuned out around the same time (late season 2) because there was just too much going on to keep up with. For people who don't sit there and analyze the hell out of every episode, I'm sure zooming the plot along at the speed this show does is just overwhelming

I've seen that happen with casual viewers I've recruited as well. Once they get to 2B, it just gets confusing. 3B was the same way. I do like the idea of focusing on one fairy tale universe at a time, such as Neverland or Frozen. 2B didn't focus on any in particular, and 3B had a very weak Oz theme, and they both felt very random.

Edited October 7, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Shanna Marie]

Going back to this:

 

I don't think the overall thematic message of the episode was "Foster System Baaaaaaaad!".

I agree. I think TV in general does a disservice to the foster system by showing it as almost uniformly awful, while I have friends who are foster parents who've given those children some of the best love and security they've ever known. I've seen kids thrive in foster care, and TV seldom shows that. But I think what they showed in "True North" was more "Regina Baaaaad!" than "Foster System Baaaaaad!" The attitude about the foster system came from Emma, who had a negative experience in that system, and who had probably an atypical experience in the system because she never had a family. She wasn't an abused or neglected kid who found a safe place, but rather a seemingly unwanted kid. Even the most loving foster home would have sucked for her compared to the idealized image of a "real" family she'd never known. That was where she was coming from in wanting Hansel and Gretel (I can't remember their Storybrooke names) to be with their biological father and each other rather than go into the system and be separated.

 

Meanwhile, we as viewers knew that Regina wasn't sending those kids into any system, whether in Maine or Massachusetts, keeping them together or splitting them up, since they couldn't leave the town without likely ending up dead (and possibly Emma along with them if the part of the curse that made something horrible happen to the kids on the way out of town also got Emma as she took them away). We knew Regina was willing to kill them to make Emma look like a failure to Henry, and that this was what the stakes really were. Emma thought she was keeping the kids out of the system, while we knew that the stakes were really their lives. I didn't see any moralizing there, just the repetition of the theme that the real-world problems Emma was trying to solve were actually fairy tale happy endings she needed to restore.

 

The moralizing that bothers me are those repeated platitudes that sound really good but that are treated as universal absolutes when they really aren't. Like "Heroes don't kill people." Well, they might have to, like in self defense or defense of others -- like taking out Cora before she could make herself the Dark One and kill the whole town. Heroes don't kill lightly, and they don't murder, but sometimes saving others requires killing a threat that can't be dealt with any other way. The current one, "You never give up on the people you love," works okay when it's about saving your loved ones' lives or souls and not stopping even when that seems difficult. It might even apply conditionally to not letting the people you care about slip away from you when they need or love you but can't deal with that at the moment. But that platitude could easily take a darker turn if taken to extremes. It could be used as a justification for stalking. Someone like Regina could use it as a justification for murdering Marian or erasing her from existence because she's not willing to give up on Robin. Tell the wrong person not to give up on the people they love, and horrible things could happen. Yet they're treating it like a universal truth that's always a good thing.

[KingOfHearts]

 

Like "Heroes don't kill people." Well, they might have to, like in self defense or defense of others. Heroes don't kill lightly, and they don't murder, but sometimes saving others requires killing a threat that can't be dealt with any other way.

 

This. There is a stark difference between killing someone to save others and "murder". Saying heroes don't kill is idiotic because if that's true, they'll let evildoers live another day, thereby giving them another opportunity to kill other people. That's just as immoral. Cricket Game is a concrete example. 

 

 

Someone like Regina could use it as a justification for murdering Marian or erasing her from existence because she's not willing to give up on Robin.

 

Knowing how loosely Regina uses "love" to describe her feelings for other people, this would certainly happen.

Edited October 7, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Mathius]

I don't think this is true. Rumple has less screentime than the 3 ladies and may be on par with Hook and Charming. It's of better quality but I can't say for sure if it's writing or just Robert's talent is making pure trash look mediocre. I tend to think the latter. I don't think A&E are particularly enamored of Rumple either, more like they just respect Robert and is desperately trying to find something for him to do but I don't think I'll ever say they're writing Rumple fanfiction.

I should have been more specific: he GOT more screentime in Season 2 due to his popularity (he had a drastic increase in screentime when compared to Season 1, while Emma got a drastic decrease.) In Season 3, he's fallen back into having less screentime again, with only Neal and Belle having less than him within the core cast. Hook and Charming have a lot more, actually.

What really turned viewers off though was when she began flip-flopping after Cora came to town.

Yes, "The Cricket Game" was the last episode to have 9 million live viewers until just recently. Even more dropped off after "The Outsider" (Hook shooting Belle and making her amnesiac was a bad move, evidently), and "In the Name of the Brother", where Regina joined Cora, sealed the show's fate. Those viewers never came back after that.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Mathius

[Mari]

I should have been more specific: he GOT more screentime in Season 2 due to his popularity (he had a drastic increase in screentime when compared to Season 1, while Emma got a drastic decrease.) In Season 3, he's fallen back into having less screentime again, with only Neal and Belle having less than him within the core cast. Hook and Charming have a lot more, actually.

Yes, "The Cricket Game" was the last episode to have 9 million live viewers until just recently. Even more dropped off after "The Outsider" (Hook shooting Belle and making her amnesiac was a bad move, evidently), and "In the Name of the Brother", where Regina joined Cora, sealed the show's fate. Those viewers never came back after that.

Oh, wow.  So, that annoying lasagna episode I reference snarkily when posting about self-pitying Regina was demonstratively a loser episode?  I don't know if I should laugh or not.

[Camera One]

Same thing happened in 3A. People were complaining it was too slow, then 3B came rushing through like a freight train with no stops. It went from one extreme to another.

 

There were other legitimate gripes about 3A beyond "it was too slow".  I'm not sure the writers sped up 3B because of people's complaints about 3A's pace.  In 3B, Zelena basically spent a couple of episodes doing nothing, and it was hella boring.  In their style of writing, the freight train has always come towards the end of an arc.  Everything in Neverland was rapidly resolved in 'Saving Henry".  Then, it was a rush to another apocalypse in "Going Home".  And then Zelena met her downfall in every possible way, all in a single episode "Kansas".  Even the Season 1 finale squeezed up to ten payoffs into one episode.

 

 

 

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: the most vocal voices during S1 (not the majority, as it would appear, but vocal) are probably to blame for everything the show became afterward. Opinions like "Storybrooke is boring, we want more Fairy Tale Land", "Mary Margaret and David are so annoying", "Emma is dull", "we want more Regina and Rumple", "the story isn't moving fast enough and not enough shit is happening, break the curse already"......they were everywhere. These same people praised the start of S2 because "shit was finally getting done"....if I were the producers of this show and heard all this, I'd probably decide on a more plot and action-heavy route as well. Blaming the writers can only go so far, sometimes audience reactions need to be factored in, since they are a BIG part of show business.

 

I have the feeling that the writers also had those same opinions and maybe that's why they listened to those vocal voices because it matches with what they thought and what they wanted to write, which were the villain stories.  They were likely bored with writing serialized Storybrooke stories.  The writers have quite a high opinion of their writing and are genuinely excited about the stuff they wrote these last two seasons, including 3B.  So what we are seeing is what they essentially like and want, which is Regina all the time and plot plot plot.  The online voices probably ensured that they slotted in some Rumbelle, for example, or threw in a requisite Charming episode once in a while, but I think what we are seeing ultimately comes from their own preferences.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Camera One

[KAOS Agent]

 

Yes, "The Cricket Game" was the last episode to have 9 million live viewers until just recently.

 

I think "The Cricket Game" was the episode where those diehards hoping for the emotional fallout of the Charmings being reunited finally gave up and many left. 2A ended strong with "Queen of Hearts" and Snow & Emma returning home and I think those clinging to the fantasy that we might get some Charming family moments realized that it was all a pipe dream and they dropped out. 

 

I got my mom interested in the show between seasons 1 & 2. She binge watched the entire first season in a week and absolutely loved it. She was excited for Season 2, but disliked "Broken" and then just got confused from there. She still records them now, but is so confused about so many stories that when she does watch, she has trouble remembering what's happened or understanding what's going on. I think this is the problem the show has with casual viewers. In Season 1, it was more procedural with one overarching plot that wasn't all that difficult to pick up if you've missed an episode or two. It's not hard to figure out Saviour trying to bring back the happy endings and uncurse the town. Since then it's all plot, plot, plot with new characters popping up and being a part of the main arc, but only showing up every few episodes. So if you missed an earlier episode, it's hard to keep up with who everyone is or in the case of the flip flopping villains, trying to figure out if they are good or evil today. Regina has got to really confuse viewers who don't make this appointment television with her random turns to evil and then suddenly being all white magic and good. My mom stopped watching last season at "It's Not Easy Being Green" and has all the remaining Season 3 episodes to watch, but I told her to skip them all and just watch the finale and start again with Season 4. It would be too hard for her to figure out what had happened and none if it mattered anyway, so why waste the time? 

[Camera One]

But she would miss watching that masterpiece which is "Kansas" (just joking).

 

In some ways, I like a show like this one that isn't afraid to be completely serialized.  Though my friend who marathons with me whenever she visits (we usually watch 8-9 episodes in a row since she only visits two or three times a year)... she doesn't remember what happened in the previous season sometimes.  We watched 2A in one sitting, and the first half of 2B half a year later, and she couldn't remember who Neal was in "Manhattan" even though he was in "Tallahassee".  When we watched 3B, she couldn't remember any details of what happened to Aurora and Philip.  I suppose not remembering stuff doesn't really matter in the grand scheme, since a casual viewer can usually just clue in to the plot, which is usually - don't be killed or don't let someone steal your heart/baby/son/magic bean/sword hilt, so that keeps it simple enough.

[Rumsy4]

I used to feel that "Selfless Brave and True" was the worst episode of the series, but now "Kansas" holds that spot.

[FurryFury]

I'm feeling the worst episode of the show is yet to come. I haven't seen a storyline of the show I enjoyed less than Outlaw Queen drama this season. Even Lacey or Greg and Tamara or David Nolan/Mary Margaret affair weren't as annoying.

[KingOfHearts]

I used to feel that "Selfless Brave and True" was the worst episode of the series, but now "Kansas" holds that spot.

I'll go with Cricket Game. ;)

[Mathius]

No, no, no, "The Evil Queen". By far.

EDIT: Ah, see, this is what I meant about the online fanbase:

http://www.spoilertv.com/2014/10/usd-poll-who-is-your-favourite-of-main.html

 

There were other legitimate gripes about 3A beyond "it was too slow".

 

l will say that the two most legitimate criticisms 3A gets about having the characters wandering around in a jungle for so long are:

 

1. It shouldn't have had to be perpetually night. Some sunshine and sunset wouldn't hurt.

 

2. They needed to keep the characters wandering for a while since the point was they couldn't save Henry until they faced up to their own issues, but by God, there HAD to have been a better way to do that beyond "OK, now in this epsiode we need THIS McGuffin!" 

Edited October 8, 2014 by Mathius

[KingOfHearts]

 

No, no, no, "The Evil Queen". By far.

 

I'm was going by which episode had the most lasting horrible consequences. As far as crappiest content goes, Bleeding Through wins for me by a landslide. It's difficult to pinpoint the worst episode when you've blocked most of the candidates out of your memory!

 

Side Note: Evil Queen, Second Star to the Right and Straight On Til' Morning are all a complete blur to me. I can never get which episode had what events straight.

Edited October 8, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[stealinghome]

Second Star to the Right and Straight On Til Morning are the best 2B episodes after Miller's Daughter and Manhattan, IMO. And actually, the fact that the show rebounded somewhat with those 2 is pretty much what kept me coming back for S3. If the S2 finale had been as terrible as Selfless Brave and True/Evil Queen, I would have dropped the show for S3.

 

Evil Queen is the one where Regina in the past slaughters and entire village and goes undercover and is saved by Snow White--most memorable for Rumpel, like he's talking to a 3-year-old, explaining to Regina that when you murder people, other people don't like you (and of course Regina DOESN'T GET IT at all and Rumpel is like "...really?" It's seriously amazing). In the present, it's the episode where Regina wipes Henry's mind (I believe) and tries to recover the crystal failsafe, only to be captured by Greg and Tamara when Hook (who she double-crossed) double crosses her. (Then 2x21 is devoted basically to saving Regina in the present, and Neal falls down the portal to the Enchanted Forest. 2x22 is Regina and Hook joining forces with the Charmings to recover some of the beans and stop the failsafe.)

 

I agree that Evil Queen is terrible not so much because the episode itself is terrible (Selfless Brave and True, as an episode, is much worse), but because it had awful long-lasting ramifications for the show. It was the episode where they just took Regina too far, in both the past and the present.

[Dani-Ellie]

For me, the worst is the trifecta of "Bleeding Through," "A Curious Thing," and "Kansas." I mean, look, despite how it sounds sometimes, I love this show to pieces and I forgive it a lot. Because when it does something I like (and I usually like far more than I don't), I still have a boatload of fun with it. As annoyed as I get with the constant Regina whining and all that, I can usually tune it out for the most part. But those three episodes are just ... legit, it's a Mrs. White "flames on the side of my face" rant. I just can't with the backwards morality and the hypocrisy and the cheapening of the Dark Curse and the Regina pedestal. I just can't.

 

Maybe if we'd had some space in between those episodes, I wouldn't be so angry. But taken all in a row (and especially in a marathon), it's just too much. There's no escape from the destruction of the good guys to mint the villains as heroes or at the very least justified. And then you have Snow and Charming casting the curse ("look! They did it, too! Regina's not that bad!") for all the wrong reasons (at least make it look like the Curse was the only way to keep the population safe from Zelena, guys) and with a dying Charming not mentioning his daughter or grandson.

 

Seriously, of those three episodes, I only really wanted to rewatch Emma's magic show at Granny's (all 30 seconds of it) and Emma trying to save Hook from drowning (which was what, 2 minutes, maybe?) because the rest of it pisses me off that much. 2.5 minutes of 126 isn't a good ratio, guys.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Dani-Ellie