A Thread for All Seasons: OUaT Across All Realms

[Mathius]

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.

 

Agreed, I've seen many share those sentiments to. Despite their flaws, those two episodes did a good job setting up the Neverland plot, which actually interested people after the stream of boring storylines that had opened up after Cora's death.

 

It was the episode where they just took Regina too far, in both the past and the present.

 

Exactly. All her past sins, no matter how evil, could still leave room for some form of justification or at least letting them slide when she actually redeems herself. Not this time. It's almost absurd that she ended up presented as still redeemable in the finale after this, since it indicated the exact opposite.

[Jean]

 

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

 

Yeah I'm not convinced. I might agree with loudest but not most numerous. If we put up a poll on this site, it would look different.  How else do you explain the fact that only Ginny consistently gets nominated on People's choice/Teen's choice and no one else? Lana was on the preliminary ballot for one of them but didn't make the final cut while Ginny did. I'm not saying that holds much weight either but certainly a televised show holds more than a random site. Last I checked I think Ginny also had the most twitter followers out of any cast member. People like Woegina but not Lana? People love Ginny but not Snow? A quick glance at Facebook and I see the most likes on Hook stuff. People went absolutely bonkers for Colin at the premiere thing and I read somewhere (can't personally verify) that Hook's object frozen poster got the most retweets/likes.

 

For the worst episode I say Bleeding Through. At least for me that was the final straw that broke the camel's back. It ruined one of my favorite characters, Cora and the black hole of suck is self-explanatory. After that I've been watching the show through clips on youtube.

[Shanna Marie]

Because my brain operates on tape delay and days later something will strike me ...

 

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.

Actually, having recently re-read the book, I have to say that the Hook on this show is the rare case of a character being closer to the source material than to the Disneyfied version. He's been given a haircut instead of having the long curls, the hook was moved to a different arm, and he obviously has some major differences in his backstory because book Hook was from our world and went to Eton and didn't have any encounters with Rumpelstiltskin. But the personality and other descriptions are actually pretty close, right down to the beautiful blue eyes. The Hook in the book is handsome, romantic and dashing, very passionate and emotional, and he's obsessed with Good Form. He's a well-educated gentleman. The way Barrie talks about him in speeches and other writings makes it sound almost like Hook was his Regina, though he was willing to kill him in the book. You get the impression that if that sort of thing had been done in that day, he'd have written a lot of prequel novels about Hook, with Hook as the hero. The Disney and other pop-culture depictions of Hook make him a lot more cartoony and less sympathetic than he is in the book, so this depiction seems closer to the way Barrie might have written him if he'd had the chance to take him out of Neverland and write alt. universe adventures with him. I don't know how deliberate that is on the part of the writers, but Colin has referred to reading the book and incorporating that characterization into his portrayal.

 

On the topic of losing viewers, I think the increasing complexity may have had something to do with some of it. My mom was the one who suggested I watch, as she saw the pilot on a night when I was singing in a concert. But then she dropped out sometime during season one. She missed an episode or two because she had church events that overlapped the timeslot, then was utterly lost the next time she tried to watch. I think she liked the more self-contained nature of the early episodes, where the fairybacks were what told the ongoing story, but the Storybrooke part of the story was more episodic, with Emma taking on a case of the week. The more detail added in the fairybacks and the more the past started affecting the present, the harder the show was to keep up with for a more casual viewer. On the one hand, there are just some people who don't like serialized television (my parents are big on the procedurals where you don't have to keep track of what's going on in people's lives and can just focus on the crime of the week) and you shouldn't need to write a show to appeal to them if that's not what you're trying to do, just as there are people who don't like fantasy, and there's no point in writing a fantasy show to appeal to them. But there is a fail if you aren't writing a story compelling enough to keep someone who initially liked it caring enough to keep up with it. My mom manages to follow Continuum, with all its twists, and makes a point of watching, so it's not just the serialized thing. It boiled down to losing interest and no longer caring. Those are the viewers I'd worry about as a writer, not the ones who can say exactly what annoyed them so much that they quit watching, but the ones who just didn't care enough to bother keeping up with it.

[Amerilla]

I, too, am on a bit of a tape delay. And apparently in a tl;dr place.

Actually, having recently re-read the book, I have to say that the Hook on this show is the rare case of a character being closer to the source material than to the Disneyfied version. He's been given a haircut instead of having the long curls, the hook was moved to a different arm, and he obviously has some major differences in his backstory because book Hook was from our world and went to Eton and didn't have any encounters with Rumpelstiltskin. But the personality and other descriptions are actually pretty close, right down to the beautiful blue eyes. The Hook in the book is handsome, romantic and dashing, very passionate and emotional, and he's obsessed with Good Form. He's a well-educated gentleman. The way Barrie talks about him in speeches and other writings makes it sound almost like Hook was his Regina, though he was willing to kill him in the book. You get the impression that if that sort of thing had been done in that day, he'd have written a lot of prequel novels about Hook, with Hook as the hero. The Disney and other pop-culture depictions of Hook make him a lot more cartoony and less sympathetic than he is in the book, so this depiction seems closer to the way Barrie might have written him if he'd had the chance to take him out of Neverland and write alt. universe adventures with him. I don't know how deliberate that is on the part of the writers, but Colin has referred to reading the book and incorporating that characterization into his portrayal.

Coincidentally, I re-read Peter Pan not long ago, and I have a slightly different take.

Two disclaimers: first, I find all pirates equally tiresome as a genre, so I don't have (sea)horse in this race; second, I find "Killian" to be such a cringingly romance-novel-esq name that I can't bring myself to type it without feeling slightly seedy, so I'll save myself the cringes and the keystrokes and call Once's Hook "K-Hook." Like P. Diddy. Or JMo.

With that out of the way....

Just in general, I don't think you can change a character's entire backstory, motivation and place within the narrative and say it's faithful to the spirit of the original. They may share some superficial attributes, but James Hook and K-Hook are no more alike than Jas. Hook is like Christopher Newport, Captain Ahab or Long John Silver - the real and fictional characters Barrie is believed to have drawn on in constructing his Hook.

There are two specific areas where I feel Barrie is probably spinning in his grave over this particular iteration of Hook: his lack of menace and the focus on romance and sexuality.

I agree that Barrie loved Hook as a character, but what grabbed me in the book was that he clearly loved him as much for his rotten heart (so to speak) than his more gentle attributes. He actually did write a sort of prequel about Hook in his 1927 lecture "Captain Hook at Eton," where he presented as young Hook as a somewhat noble youth, but didn't make him a hero and didn't back away from his depiction of the adult Hook as a cut-throat, saying only "though surely the proud, if detestable, position he attained is another proof that the Etonian is a natural leader of men." He was adamant that stage productions of Peter Pan not play Hook for comedy or as a light figure - he wanted adult Hook be be seen as a genuinely fearsome creature, a remorseless killer. Sure, he has eyes "the blue of the forget-me-not, and of a profound melancholy," but when he was plunging his hook into you "two red spots appeared in them and lit them up horribly."

"Let us now kill a pirate, to show Hook's method," Barrie says when we first meet the pirate up close and personal. "Skylights will do. As they pass, Skylights lurches clumsily against him, ruffling his lace collar; the hook shoots forth, there is a tearing sound and one screech, then the body is kicked aside, and the pirates pass on. He has not even taken the cigars from his mouth." This is a man who will kill on a whim, who will lash Wendy Darling to the mast so she's forced to watch as he prepares to push her "children" to their deaths. Barrie's Hook was 100% antagonist and there was no way he was going to be reformed and redeemed. He was a character created to die.

Barrie speaks to two audiences with Hook. Children, especially younger boys, were obvioulsy the primary audience, and for them, he wanted a someone who would both repel and attract them in his own right, and that they would cheer even more loudly when the boy Peter sends him to his doom. For the adult audience, Hook's erudite speech and foppish dress spoke to the piratical nature of "gentlemen." (Which is why many productions of the play have the same actor play both George Darling and Hook; Darling's obsession with correctness and business mirrors Hook's obsession with besting Pan and Good Form).

Once's Hook is, by comparison, a tissue-paper tiger. He's never shown as being a particularly fearsome pirate, and in the current story, he's feared by no one. His hook never lands a fatal blow. He's not a bastard child with a complex; he dosen't claim to be a gentleman; he dosen't sit around obsessing on Good Form. He dosen't rage - at best, he pulls out a Scarlett O'Hara "As God is my witness" type vow for revenge. He's not dumb, but he's no raconteur or scholar (in part because the show doesn't give anyone dialog beyond plot-exposition-plot). He seems to be more of a lover than a fighter, and not a very adept fighter at that. During his run on the show, he's been knocked around by 95-pound librarians and 110-pound mermaids, been tied up more than once, chained up, handcuffed, beaten, left behind, and tossed across the room like a rag doll. By the end of S3, he even punched himself in the kisser. Two-plus seasons on, he's treated by most of those around him with, at best, a sort of weary indifference. He's so toothless and non-threatening when it comes to kids that Emma enlists him as a babysitter. All of this is to keep him alive in the story and non-villainous enough to serve as a love interest for Emma the Savior, but it puts him far, far, far, far, far from Barrie's original concept.

ETA: I think I skipped most of the Ariel lip-curse episode. He did kill Blackbeard, correct? So, that's a win for him.

And then there's sex.

James Hook, like Barrie himself, is mostly an asexual figure. Barrie presents him as a big-r Romantic. You can see that in the intensity of his emotions (passion, rage, fear) and in his references to poetry and feeling, in the way he balances admiration and fear of nature with both the 'redskins' and the crocodile. But small-r romance doesn't exist in Neverland, where he's choosen to make his home. Like the Lost Boys, he views Wendy as a "mother," but clearly not a wife or companion for himself - yes, this is in part because that would have been too gross for the audience. That said, I don't think it was purely a nod to anti-obscenity laws. Rather than take the opportunity to root Hook's downfall in the traditional trope of a lost or dead love, Barrie says in his 1927 lecture on Hook's early life that "so far as I can learn there never was any woman in his life. His furrow had therefore to be a lonely one. Perhaps if some dear girl—who can tell?"

Barrie's overall portrait is of a man who has grown up physically, but not emotionally. Hook fixates on his Eton years, when he was just an adolescent and presumably unwise to the ways of love. His obsession with "Good Form" isn't actually about following a code of ethics, so much as a form of self-inflicted torture any of us remember from our youth, as we try to figure out what our parents and the world expects us to be. ("Most disquieting reflection of all, was it not bad form to think about good form? His vitals were tortured by this problem. It was a claw within him sharper than the iron one; and as it tore him, the perspiration dripped down his tallow countenance and streaked his doublet. Ofttimes he drew his sleeve across his face, but there was no damming that trickle.") He never advances to the beyond that and his life as a pirate is a rejection of a world where he might have a wife and a family and belong to proper society. When Wendy is brought aboard the Jolly Roger, she sees the filth and the rot of a habitation neglected by a woman's touch (I so love that Wendy writes "Dirty Pig" with her finger in the grime of the windows). "No little children love me!" he says in a moment of self-pity. But the idea of a wife or life partner never seems to enter the picture.

Once, again by comparion, has devoted an almost laughable amount of energy into letting us know that Hook is the pirate all the ladies want to fuck - the guy who is, per Kitsis, "fun in Vegas," the sexy guy in tight black leather who hangs out in taverns plying prostitues and wenches and lonely housewives with rum. Especially in S2, they went the extra mile to make sure we understood he was a sexual being. His hook isn't an object of fear, it's a prosthetic with *wink-wink* "attachments." When he has Emma pinned, he assures her when he jabs her with his "sword," she'll feel it. When he's got a gun jammed under Belle's chin, and he's talking about his murdered lover, it's not clear if he's going to shoot her in the head or dry-hump her leg. Or possibly both. When Snowing needs information, he tells David to let his wife torture it out of him "which I promise will be fun for both of us." More recently, sex has been an emotional barometer: when Emma rejects him, he tries to get Tink to pity-screw him and/or make Emma jealous; when he's feeling sad about Emma being lost to him forever, he rejects the prostitute his crew presented like a holiday fruitcake. He's not a big-r Romantic waxing on passion and nature; he's a small-r romantic who is driven by a need to avenge one lost love or pursue a new one, even if it takes forever and goes nowhere. Now that Emma receptive to a relationship, he's a puppy dog who just wants to snuggle in front of whatever the hell Netflix is, a man trying to drive a new relationship of happy domestication.

Clearly, K-Hook is a character designed to thrill women 18+, where Barrie's Hook was desgined to thrill tween boys, and so it requires a different approach. I'm not saying Once's approach is wrong - it fits the needs and expectations of a modern television audience, and it's a bonanza if you are into the character. But in terms of how JM Barrie would feel about a pirate who isn't fearsome, ins't a real pirate, isn't Etonian, wears his shirt unbuttoned down to his Neverland and who gets "fed up because it's like the entire world cannot resist my charms, why is one person I fall in love with so resistant to me"? No. I think he would rise up out of the Scottish soil and introduce Adam and Eddy to K-Hook's bosom companion: Floor.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Amerilla

[angelwoody]

Clearly, K-Hook is a character designed to thrill women 18+, where Barrie's Hook was desgined to thrill tween boys, and so it requires a different approach. I'm not saying Once's approach is wrong - it fits the needs and expectations of a modern television audience, and it's a bonanza if you are into the character. But in terms of how JM Barrie would feel about a pirate who isn't fearsome, ins't a real pirate, isn't Etonian, wears his shirt unbuttoned down to his Neverland and who gets "fed up because it's like the entire world cannot resist my charms, why is one person I fall in love with so resistant to me"? No. I think he would rise up out of the Scottish soil and introduce Adam and Eddy to K-Hook's bosom companion: Floor.

I have never read Peter Pan and I am a fan of Once's Hook, so I can't support or refute your statements.  But I just wanted to say that I found your post a fantastic read.  Well written literary analysis, well argued points, all laced with humor...  Your post is a shining example of why I love discussing Once here (and before that on TWoP).  You have made me want to go out, buy a copy of Peter Pan and read it - just so I can then figure out if I agree with you or not!  :-)  

[FabulousTater]

Speaking as someone who has never read Barrie's original "Peter Pan", I really don't care how close OUAT has stuck to the original version of Captain Hook or how far it has strayed from it. I just don't give a crap. I like the Captain Hook they've given us on this show. I think he's been a nice addition to the male leads who previously consisted of only lovable, but seriously stodgy, Charming, and selfish bastard Rumpel. Even though I like both Charming and Rumple, I think Hook has brought some needed personality to the male cast and helps round out the male personalities. IMO, Charming is too perfect to be real, and Rumpel is, well, a manipulative asshole. I like that they've stuck Hook into gray character territory. Not that he hasn't don't bad things, but at least he acknowledges it, feels bad about it, is self-aware, and is actively trying to change, which is way more than we can say about Rumple (or Regina). 
 
While I do think Hook is kinda sexy and apparently he has mass audience appeal, I don't think that makes it a bad thing by default. I don't see a character on a TV show having sex appeal (or being popular) as a negative thing. And while he's overt with his sexuality, and confident in his sex appeal, he's never used it as a weapon against someone. Clearly, some are offended by it, but personally I don't have a problem with it. He's not a rapist no matter how much some fanatical haters want to paint him as such, nor is he simply out to get into Emma's pants. Hook is flawed, but he knows it and is working to be better. I think the character works really well within the show and with the other characters, so I just don't give a crap if Barrie is rolling in his grave somewhere, offended, or applauding with glee over OUAT's version of his Captain Hook.

[Curio]

Your post is a shining example of why I love discussing Once here (and before that on TWoP).

 

Seconding this. I also haven't read Barrie's version, but I love reading well-thought-out posts that make me want to Google the topic more! So thanks, Amerilla.

 

But I also have to say I love Once's version of Hook, even if he is nothing like the original. And in Once's case, I think it actually helps his character that he's nothing like the other stories. A big part of Killian's character is how everyone tends to judge him harshly based off his pirate reputation (which I feel is a bit embellished) and the stories they hear about him, so it just adds a layer to the meta when people think of Barrie's Hook, but Killian is nothing like that. 

[Dani-Ellie]

But I also have to say I love Once's version of Hook, even if he is nothing like the original. And in Once's case, I think it actually helps his character that he's nothing like the other stories.

 

Same here. Authors dislike adaptations of their work all the time (cracked.com just did an article on this very thing). P. L. Travers quite famously detested absolutely everything about what Walt Disney did to Mary Poppins, but that didn't stop countless people from falling in love with the movie over the last 50 years (myself included). And the central conceit of Once is "these are the characters you think you know." Though the Frozen gang is the obvious exception to this rule, Once's characters are not and were never going to be the characters set forth in the original works.

 

What matters more to me is whether the character Once has set forth fits in with the other characters, and I think that Hook does. He's enmeshed in many of the characters' stories (in ways that may or may not have been given the attention they deserve). I like that he was once an idealistic young man who turned to piracy out of anger and vengeance, only to slip further into it after yet another one of life's curveballs. And I think they've done a better job with his turnaround than, say, Regina. He's at least recognized that his path was the wrong one and is making the effort to change it.

[Shanna Marie]

I didn't mean to imply that show Hook (or K-Hook) was exactly like book Hook (J-Hook), just that I think he's closer to the source material than the Disney version was, and I think he's closer to the source material than to the Disney version (which is pretty much entirely unlike the book character). He may even be closer to the source material version than just about any other non-Frozen character on this show so far. Although the premise of the show involves twisting and fleshing out the familiar stories, for the most part, they treat the Disney version as the "definitive" version used for the jumping-off point. For instance, although they've changed the Snow White story a fair amount in giving the prince a personality and a backstory and letting Snow do more than keep house for the dwarfs while on the run from the Evil Queen, they still based all this on the Disney version, complete with the dwarf personalities (Happy, Doc, Grumpy, Sleepy, et al). Belle on the show may be Belle In Name Only, but she's still very definitely meant to be based on the Disney Belle who was the Beauty in the Beauty and the Beast story rather than being a more generic "Beauty" who might have come from the fairy tale.

 

But I don't think Killian Jones has much at all to do with the Disney cartoon version of Hook or other pop culture interpretations, like the Rodgers and Hammerstein musical. That Hook is mostly a comic villain, something of a buffoon. While Barrie may have meant his late 16th/early 17th century look as the epitome of a courtly gentleman, with perhaps a touch of his era's version of rock-star swagger, to modern eyes, the long curls and lace cuffs look kind of ridiculous, and so that look has become used as part of that clown-like portrayal. The show Hook's black leather may come closer to capturing the spirit of what Barrie intended to convey, even if it's far from the actual description. It's played for laughs in the Disney version when the crocodile is stalking Hook, with him cowering in fear, but I think the show has always taken the feud between "crocodile" Rumple and Hook very seriously. Even the "Captain Floor" stuff wasn't done as slapstick humor, and I'm not sure that's too far from book Hook, considering that he was defeated by children. At least show Hook's been knocked down/out by adults.

 

Once's Hook is, by comparison, a tissue-paper tiger. He's never shown as being a particularly fearsome pirate, and in the current story, he's feared by no one. His hook never lands a fatal blow. He's not a bastard child with a complex; he dosen't claim to be a gentleman; he dosen't sit around obsessing on Good Form. He dosen't rage - at best, he pulls out a Scarlett O'Hara "As God is my witness" type vow for revenge. He's not dumb, but he's no raconteur or scholar (in part because the show doesn't give anyone dialog beyond plot-exposition-plot).

Show Hook can't be quite that fearsome, since he's now a good guy rather than a villain and is a love interest for the heroine, but I was rather surprised in rewatching season two after getting used to the kinder, gentler Hook of season three just how scary Hook could be. We don't literally get those red spots in his eyes, but there are moments when he just snaps and I caught myself flinching. We don't know enough about his backstory to know if he's got some kind of bastard child complex, but the hints to being abandoned child are there, and I think you could equate show Hook's time in the Navy to book Hook's Eton. He cares enough about "Good Form" that this was the title of his backstory episode, and we don't know how much he obsesses about it because we don't get to be inside his head the way we are with the book character. The book character's interior thoughts were often at odds with his behavior, so that obsession wouldn't have been entirely obvious without the point of view. Show Hook has identified himself as a gentleman to Emma, and he does come across as a bit of a scholar, using big words when smaller ones will do, using very formal phrasings, and I think we've seen him with books almost as much as we've seen supposed bookworm Belle.

 

At any rate, the origin of this discussion was what changed along the way in the show, and one argument was doing more to Disneyfy the characters and make it more aimed at kids, with Hook as an example. But if the show character is meant for adults and is a sexual being while the book character was aimed at tween boys who aren't yet into girls, I don't see how that backs up that argument.

 

Really, I think the main problem following from season one is that they didn't have a good plan in place for what to do after the curse broke and they started reading and believing their own press and/or the loudest fan voices. They couldn't really continue the structure from the first season once the curse broke, since a big part of that was figuring out which Storybrooke people were which fairytale characters and finding a way to give them back their happy endings. Once they got their memories back, that storyline was finished. But then there was no real through-line to the story, no overarching goal. It's just been one villain after another while they don't know what to do with the original villains because they don't want to get rid of them after they've either achieved their goals or been defeated but they don't want to totally redeem them because they're more fun as villains, but they also want them to be sympathetic hero characters. No real plan plus the inability to do what really needs to be done to keep the story coherent means you get kind of a mess.

[Rumsy4]

I was thinking of the Neverland arc, and how it could have gone better. For one thing, making Peter Pan Rumple's father was a big mistake. First of all, there was such a disconnect between the accents of the older man and younger version. Second, it was only done to add to the "poor Rumple" idea, and provide a justification to his refusal to leave town for Milah's happiness, and explain why he let go of Bae at the portal. The writers are not content to leave things be, and apparently fail to understand that an explanation is not an excuse. Moreover, the whole de-ageing thing just didn't work. Pan didn't seem so much of a loser as his older self, and he seemed to have developed a level of cunning and ability to manipulate with words that went beyond the petty card tricks that fooled nobody when he was an adult. 

 

If they wanted Rumple and Pan to be blood-related, making Pan Rumple's brother might have been a better option. He could have kept the same character traits, and acted as guardian to wee Rumple, and still abandoned him for eternal youth in Neverland. It would also have paralleled with the Killian/Liam story in a twisted way, because Rumple and Hook are foils for each other. Maybe they didn't want to show Rumple killing a minor? But we've already seen Rumple killing an innocent blind girl in the past.After all, Pan disappeared--it's not like we saw a body, or even a hint of blood. Sometimes, I really wonder what goes on in the minds of Adam and Eddy when they come up with these ideas.  

[Mari]

Sometimes, I really wonder what goes on in the minds of Adam and Eddy when they come up with these ideas.  

I think mostly it's "Heheheh.  SURPRISE!"

[Camera One]

Yeah, it's totally, "Wouldn't it be cool if.............", "People would be soooo surprised and shocked when.........", and "The most awesome twist would be if...................".

 

Watch every episode and there are a couple of those. 

Edited October 12, 2014 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

 

Sometimes, I really wonder what goes on in the minds of Adam and Eddy when they come up with these ideas.

"How would Regina react to...."

 

 

If they wanted Rumple and Pan to be blood-related, making Pan Rumple's brother might have been a better option.

Pan should have been Rumple's best friend as a child, imo. When they get to be about 14, maybe Pan wants to stay a kid while Rumple wants to grow up. Something to that effect. Then Pan betrays Rumple, and blah blah blah. I like the friends-become-rivals model better than Daddy Pan.

Edited October 12, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

Before 3A, I thought it would be friends-become-rivals sort of like Dumbledore vs. Grindelwald or whatever his name was in Harry Potter.  

[stealinghome]

Peter Pan as Papa Pan could have worked really well, imo, but holding back Pan's true identity for the "surprise" really harmed the storyline. To do it justice, they needed to reveal the secret in, like, 3x02, and then have Rumpel really work through his daddy issues for the next 4-5 episodes. (Conversely, imo 3B would have been better if Regina and Zelena only found out they were half-sisters in, like, Zelena's penultimate episode [or if Regina and Zelena were totally unrelated, but, you know].)

[Camera One]

Peter Pan as Papa Pan could have worked really well, imo, but holding back Pan's true identity for the "surprise" really harmed the storyline. To do it justice, they needed to reveal the secret in, like, 3x02, and then have Rumpel really work through his daddy issues for the next 4-5 episodes. 

 

Yes, Rumple crying over the Doll and having conversations with Vision Belle was a complete waste of the actor and a complete waste of screentime in general.  If they planned to kill Neal off in 3B, they could have devoted more time to father/son working together and working through their issues, while Rumple was also confronting the prospect of facing his own father.  "Nasty Habits" was such a waste of a flashback, since it was basically done to tease Rumple and Peter Pan's relationship without telling us, which made it completely plot oriented.  That flashback could have shown Bae in Neverland and/or Bae after escaping Neverland and how he became the "Neal" that Emma met.  True, the writers wanted to focus on Rumple and only Rumple and not Neal, but even with that goal in mind, they could have chosen a better way of doing it.  Heck, have the "Think Lovely Thoughts" flashback in "Nasty Habits" instead.  It would have paralleled Neal/Rumple with Rumple/Pan.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Camera One

[YaddaYadda]

Instead of having shadow Belle, they could have had shadow Neal instead. 

[Camera One]

I would have liked that.  Though they needed a way to use Belle since she was a regular, but she was in Storybrooke.  So there was that "mystery" of whether she was really Belle projecting herself or not.  Whereas Neal was already being used in the Enchanted Forest, and in hindsight, we now know this was actually to re-introduce the Robin Hood character to service the eventual Regina plot.  

[NYGirl]

I don't know which thread to ask this question so please forgive me if this is the wrong one.  I missed all of last season...something happened to my DVR and there were too many saved episodes to catch up.

 

What the hell happened to Snow White?  She got so chubby.  And who's that baby?  Is it hers? Is he magical?

[Amerilla]

NYGirl - Ginny Goodwin and Josh Dallas had a little baby boy just after they finished filming last season, so her real-life pregnancy was written into the show, and that's her leftover baby weight.

The baby on the show is Snow and David's, who we around here refer to as Snowflake. We don't know if he's magical, but it's a good bet he will be.

I wish I could give you a quick overview of the season you missed, but it was so bad, I don't have the heart to do it.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Amerilla

[NYGirl]

Thanks Amerilla... I've got some catching up to do.

Edited October 13, 2014 by NYGirl

[Mathius]

For one thing, making Peter Pan Rumple's father was a big mistake.

All I can say is: I disagree.

First of all, there was such a disconnect between the accents of the older man and younger version.

That was a little distracting, I'll give you that.

Second, it was only done to add to the "poor Rumple" idea, and provide a justification to his refusal to leave town for Milah's happiness, and explain why he let go of Bae at the portal. The writers are not content to leave things be, and apparently fail to understand that an explanation is not an excuse.

I never saw it that way. I didn't think Rumple was being excused, I think the tragedy of it all was just being highlighted: in deliberately trying NOT to be like his father, Rumple made choices that DID make him like his father. It helps explain more why he went so crazy after losing Bae, and why he adopted that voice and mannerisms afterward...he was emulating his father because he now felt that he'd become like him.

Moreover, the whole de-ageing thing just didn't work. Pan didn't seem so much of a loser as his older self, and he seemed to have developed a level of cunning and ability to manipulate with words that went beyond the petty card tricks that fooled nobody when he was an adult.

Um, he developed that over hundreds of years! Dark One Rumple certainly isn't the same as the coward seen in "The Crocodile" and "Desperate Souls" for the same reason. It's not like he immediately stopped being a loser when he de-aged; his talk with the Shadow in Skull Rock was all him petulantly whining "I thought I'd get to live forever! I'll find a way to bypass these rules!"

If they wanted Rumple and Pan to be blood-related, making Pan Rumple's brother might have been a better option.

Except that his father had already been built up as a big factor in his life, back in "Manhattan". There was no HINT of a brother anywhere, so dropping that out of nowhere would be as cheap and forced as....well, Zelena being Regina's completely unforeshadowed sister.

[Rumsy4]

I never saw it that way. I didn't think Rumple was being excused, I think the tragedy of it all was just being highlighted: in deliberately trying NOT to be like his father, Rumple made choices that DID make him like his father. It helps explain more why he went so crazy after losing Bae, and why he adopted that voice and mannerisms afterward...he was emulating his father because he now felt that he'd become like him.

 

That could have been accomplished with the original story they had planned--of Rumple's father getting killed as he was trying to escape his creditors. There was no need to de-age his dad and make him Peter Pan, which idea they only came up when planning their S3 arcs.

 

Except that his father had already been built up as a big factor in his life, back in "Manhattan". There was no HINT of a brother anywhere, so dropping that out of nowhere would be as cheap and forced as....well, Zelena being Regina's completely unforeshadowed sister.

 

Ideally, Pan would have been a childhood friend, which is what a lot of us assumed. There was no need to make him blood-related. But the writers were obsessed with making everyone family, and I feel that making Pan Rumple's brother would have worked better than a de-aged parent. 

 

Um, he developed that over hundreds of years! Dark One Rumple certainly isn't the same as the coward seen in "The Crocodile" and "Desperate Souls" for the same reason. It's not like he immediately stopped being a loser when he de-aged; his talk with the Shadow in Skull Rock was all him petulantly whining "I thought I'd get to live forever! I'll find a way to bypass these rules!"

 

There is no evidence in the Show that Pan developed cunning and manipulation over hundreds of years. When Killian and Liam meet Pan in Neverland, he's been living alone in Neverland for a few decades at best, but he was already acting manipulative. Some years after that, he goes to Rumple's village, and gets his first set of recruits for the Lost Boys. There again, we see him manipulate Rumple over whether Bae would choose to stay with him or not. The Lost Boys would not have been all that hard to brainwash and control, so where did he get all that manipulate capacity from? He had fooled no one as an adult. Nothing felt organic about the transformation from the shabby loser we saw to Papa!Pan.

 

The transformation of coward Rumple to Dark One Rumple seemed natural, on the other hand. The power went into his head, and the Dark Magic corrupted his soul. He was able to pay back every single person who had ever bullied or thwarted him, which he had been too weak and/or cowardly to confront previously.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Rumsy4

[Jean]

I think the problem was in the execution, like with everything. I mean I get what they were going for with Pan and Rumple but I don't think it translated, at all. They spent too much time hiding their "big twist" that all we got to see of Pan and Rumple were the shallow tauntings. The way he was with Rumple was no different from his taunting of Emma or Hook and it should've been deeper with Rumple and wholly different. It's a shame too because Robbie Kay wouuld've knocked it out of the park alongside Robert. I think with a less charismatic actor, Pan would've fallen apart. It wasn't until that cave scene with the Pandora's box that we finally got the stuff that it should've been all along. They tried to spread Pan too thinly. He was supposed to affect Rumple, Neal, the truest twit, Hook and Emma and all we got was a sampling of each. Now I'm not saying they should serve up a buffet, but just a little more with each, or altogether would've made the story richer. Ariel should've been saved for another arc, because Tinkerbell was right there, with nothing to do but be a prop. All those dumb ass fairybacks of Snow and the black hole should've been cut. They served zero purpose.

 

 

I think the tragedy of it all was just being highlighted: in deliberately trying NOT to be like his father, Rumple made choices that DID make him like his father.

This was the other problem. They had 4 generations of men from that family and didn't bother to do anything with it. I read somewhere that Robert's commentary in Think Lovely Thoughts said something like they were trying to do exactly as you said, with Rumple ending up like his father by abandoning Bae and then Bae ending up like the both of them by abandoning Emma. I could see that's what they're going for but again it didn't exactly translate onscreen. I think we got like maybe 2 scenes for this. Neal didn't even get to react to the fact that Pan was his grandpa and the man spent like hundreds of years as his sort of prisoner.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Jean

[Mathius]

That could have been accomplished with the original story they had planned--of Rumple's father getting killed as he was trying to escape his creditors. There was no need to de-age his dad and make him Peter Pan, which idea they only came up when planning their S3 arcs.

I don't think so. Rumple abandoned his son for magic power, and that's exactly like his father abandoning him because he's...running for his life? Seriously, that's a pretty justifiable reason for leaving your kid behind. Also, when was it said exactly when they came up with the Papa Pan idea? I thought it was during the making of "Manhattan" (A&E confirmed that was when the Neverland idea came up, which explains Cora's sudden rush out of the show in the next two episodes and all that followed), which is why they cut their originally planned scene of kid Rumple and his father.

When Killian and Liam meet Pan in Neverland, he's been living alone in Neverland for a few decades at best, but he was already acting manipulative.

How? Pan was surprisingly honest in that one. He told them what Dreamshade really did, he told Killian about the water, and he told him it came with a price that he shouldn't leave Neverland if he's not willing to pay it.

Also, I must point to "Second Star To The Right", where Wendy confirms that time works differently in Neverland, since she felt like she was gone for days even when back home only a night had passed. A few decades was probably a lot longer in Neverland.

He had fooled no one as an adult. Nothing felt organic about the transformation from the shabby loser we saw to Papa!Pan.

He did fool someone...Rumple. He even says so in "Nasty Habits" ("he fooled me for a long time before I finally saw his true nature"). While his manipulative skills vastly improved overtime as Pan, right from the start Malcolm the adult could fool children, which is why Pan's most susceptible victims are children, like Henry.

The way he was with Rumple was no different from his taunting of Emma or Hook and it should've been deeper with Rumple and wholly different. It's a shame too because Robbie Kay wouuld've knocked it out of the park alongside Robert. I think with a less charismatic actor, Pan would've fallen apart. It wasn't until that cave scene with the Pandora's box that we finally got the stuff that it should've been all along.

"Nasty Habits" was just taunting, I'll give you that, but I think their scene in "Ariel" did it right before the Skull Rock one did. Pan gives Rumple his "favorite breakfast" since Rumple "looks a bit down in the dumps", and tries to encourage him to go live his life back in Storybrooke with Belle ("looks fertile!") with convincing parental sincerity (it's not sincere at all, of course, but that isn't fully proven until "Going Home"). Rumple's behavior is also good here, especially when he takes out the doll after Pan leaves and looks at it in a way which tells he's obviously thinking "he made me this doll...that was a sign of love, wasn't it? Maybe he really is looking after my best interests...maybe I should listen to him and go back to Belle..."

Ariel should've been saved for another arc, because Tinkerbell was right there, with nothing to do but be a prop. All those dumb ass fairybacks of Snow and the black hole should've been cut. They served zero purpose.

Nay on cutting Ariel, but yay on cutting those fairybacks (including Ariel's...she could be introduced in the present-day story and then get her fairyback origin in another arc/season.)

Edited October 14, 2014 by Mathius

[Rumsy4]

I don't think so. Rumple abandoned his son for magic power, and that's exactly like his father abandoning him because he's...running for his life? Seriously, that's a pretty justifiable reason for leaving your kid behind. Also, when was it said exactly when they came up with the Papa Pan idea? I thought it was during the making of "Manhattan" (A&E confirmed that was when the Neverland idea came up, which explains Cora's sudden rush out of the show in the next two episodes and all that followed), which is why they cut their originally planned scene of kid Rumple and his father.

 

He would still have been a loser who ran out on his responsibilities. I just don't think a magic-related reason was needed. After all, Neal didn't abandon Emma for magic-related reasons. He really did not want to see his dad again. They wanted rights for Peter Pan from the start, but they came up with the specific idea to make Pan Rumple's dad when planning for S3. I'm not saying that writers can't come up with new ideas, but with A&E, they more often seem to start with a "brilliant" idea, and then try to force their existing narrative/characters to fit that idea. And more often than not, it just does not work.

 

 

How? Pan was surprisingly honest in that one. He told them what Dreamshade really did, he told Killian about the water, and he told him it came with a price that he shouldn't leave Neverland if he's not willing to pay it.

 

And conveniently left before actually telling Killian what the price was. 

 

 

A few decades was probably a lot longer in Neverland.

 

Maybe. But he was either alone, or interacting with kids. I don't see how that would have made him a master manipulator. I just don't think Pan's origin story was convincing, and felt shoe-horned into the story.

[Mathius]

I'm not saying that writers can't come up with new ideas, but with A&E, they more often seem to start with a "brilliant" idea, and then try to force their existing narrative/characters to fit that idea. And more often than not, it just does not work.

This is highly subjective, though. I have seen just as many people both online and offline that thought liked the Papa Pan twist and felt that it did work. Peter Pan has always been a little boy who never grows up; making him Rumple's brother or childhood friend would not change that, and this show is supposed to be trying things that have NEVER been done with fairy tale characters before. There have been evil Pans before, and there have been grown-up Pans before, even ones that were fathers (RIP, Robin Williams). A de-aged Pan, one who started out a man and became a child, was really the only new idea left, and making him Rumple's deadbeat dad added much more to the arc they were already having Rumple undergo.

Again, that right there, that it had a big effect on Rumple, is why I feel the idea worked so much better than making Regina and the Wicked Witch related, because it was only Zelena who was affected by Regina being her sister whereas Regina never really gave a crap, yet Regina is the one who is supposed to be going through an arc! If the actual developing character doesn't care about the blood relationship she shares with her nemesis, why should we?

Edited October 15, 2014 by Mathius

[Dani-Ellie]

From the Robin Hood thread:

 

 

 

It's that weird Stepford Townspeople thing that seems to make everyone unable to remember or care about the harm Regina's done to them. They overreact to everyone else for minor things or suspicions, but no one's bothered by what Regina's done. It's just bizarre, and Robin is only the latest and possibly most egregious victim.

 

Yes, and it's so very frustrating.

 

I seem to remember an interview with Adam and Eddy coming out where they basically said that what happened in the Enchanted Forest stays in the Enchanted Forest. And it's like, this isn't Vegas, and we're not talking about wild and crazy but ultimately fun antics, here. What happened in the Enchanted Forest should have a bearing on what happens in Storybrooke because the events of the Enchanted Forest didn't magically unhappen when everyone's lives were uprooted by the curse. Aside from Marian, everyone who died is still dead (and she only escaped death because Emma time-traveled, for crying out loud), so there are still holes in people's lives where Regina killed their family member. Snow and Charming still missed the first three decades of Emma's life. The curse may have brought everyone to a new land, but it brought (or should have brought) all their emotional baggage with them.

 

And that's not even getting into all the things in Storybrooke Regina has done, like killing Graham or poisoning Henry while meaning to poison Emma or trying to kill the Charmings for half a season. But just because Regina's "trying," everyone's just going to forget what she did to them? That's not normal; the normal response to betrayed trust to the point where people are dead is the response that gets portrayed as "Oh poor Regina:" the hurt party backs away and don't even want to talk to the perpetrator again, never mind trust him or her.

 

I might buy into Regina's redemption more if Regina was actually made to atone for her crimes rather than making all the other characters treat her crimes as water under the bridge.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Dani-Ellie

[KingOfHearts]

 

I seem to remember an interview with Adam and Eddy coming out where they basically said that what happened in the Enchanted Forest stays in the Enchanted Forest.

 

Which really isn't true since Storybrooke is just FTL with electricity. There's magic, Snowing is ruling it, there are no cursed personalities, Regina is back to her role in the Missing Year, etc. There's really no reason for SB except for the conveniences that Happy and Grumpy pointed out during the blackout. The Missing Year printed this out in bold letters - between SB and EF, the differences are much slimmer than one would think. It makes everyone going back as an endgame much less climactic, and it also cheapens the show's premise.

Edited October 15, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[KAOS Agent]

And that's not even getting into all the things in Storybrooke Regina has done, like killing Graham or poisoning Henry while meaning to poison Emma or trying to kill the Charmings for half a season. But just because Regina's "trying," everyone's just going to forget what she did to them?

 

My problem is that it's not like she's even really trying. If they want me to believe that Emma or Snow or any other person whose life she destroyed would willingly hang out with her now because she's changed, they need to massively tone down the snark. I don't know if they think she's being sassy or what, but mostly Regina's remarks to everyone are rude and insulting and in the last episode, they were downright belittling towards Emma. No one in their right mind would continue to take abuse like that from someone - most especially someone who was so directly responsible for so much trauma in their lives. And they certainly wouldn't put their own life on hold to make sure that person gets a happy ending. I don't know what they are trying to say with the Regina character after last season's "heroics", but the return to Season 1's undermining of the Emma/Henry relationship (Operation Mongoose) and general bitterness and total lack of self-awareness only this time with the added bonus that her victims are her cheerleaders instead of her foes is not something that I want to watch. If it doesn't stop, I will quit this show. 

Edited October 15, 2014 by KAOS Agent

[KingOfHearts]

 

No one in their right mind would continue to take abuse like that from someone - most especially someone who was so directly responsible for so much trauma in their lives.

That's why we're all so grateful for Emma's "you're bitter and you're taking it out on the wrong person" comment. It's definitely not enough, but it's always nice when someone decides not to take Regina's crap.

 

I find it funny that it's not Regina as a character that's creating all these issues. It's the writers bending everyone to their will, OoC be darned. It's not entertaining to watch everyone tiptoe around her. You'd think they'd learn that after the massive ratings drop in 2B when the Rise of Woegina occurred. 

Edited October 15, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Rumsy4]

This is highly subjective, though. I have seen just as many people both online and offline that thought liked the Papa Pan twist and felt that it did work. Peter Pan has always been a little boy who never grows up; making him Rumple's brother or childhood friend would not change that, and this show is supposed to be trying things that have NEVER been done with fairy tale characters before. There have been evil Pans before, and there have been grown-up Pans before, even ones that were fathers (RIP, Robin Williams). A de-aged Pan, one who started out a man and became a child, was really the only new idea left, and making him Rumple's deadbeat dad added much more to the arc they were already having Rumple undergo.

It might have been a good idea, but it fared poorly in execution. As I said before, the link between Malcolm and Pan was not there. Starting from the accents, to the apparent difference in personalities, there was a clear disconnect between the two. It requires major handwaving to explain why that is so. I loved Robbie Kay as Pan, but the character lost its lustre after the Pan!Father reveal, and when Robbie Kay played Henry.

And this is not the first time the writers have failed to make proper links between different versions of a character--Bae vs Neal, Cora pre- and post- Bleeding Through, etc., come to mind. It reflects the general attitude of the writers when they try too hard to make twists, but fail on proper characterization.

[Jean]

 

when Robbie Kay played Henry

 

Ok I'll admit that RK wasn't very "Henry" like but I bought him as Emma's kid and Rumple's grandkid. That hug and prove yourself convo with Emma and then that 5 second conversation he had with Rumple had a real family vibe and one that I liked more than the one with real Henry. I say that's a testament to the chemistry RK had with those 2 and that he was able to make it different from what it was with Pan. Oh and for 2 minutes, we got a non bratty, not so stupid Henry. But like all good things on this show, it couldn't last long.

 

I still don't know why they insist on writing Henry like he's still 10. The actor looks 13-15.

[KingOfHearts]

 

But like all good things on this show, it couldn't last long.

 

Oh gosh, that would have been such an epic recasting. If Robbie replaced him, I would tolerate Henry so much more. I totally agree he had better chemistry with the cast. I thought his affection and emotions were so much more real. I wish they would have just killed Pan off in Henry's body and let Robbie stay.

[Rumsy4]

Robbie Kay had fantastic chemistry with everyone, I agree. So many people would have loved it if he had stayed on as Henry. On the other hand, Robbie Kay would be wasted playing Regina's biggest cheerleader. So maybe it's all for the best? haha

[Camera One]

I thought Robbie as Henry was horrible.  He did not personify Henry at all, and I found none of his scenes as Henry convincing.  

Edited October 16, 2014 by Camera One

[stealinghome]

Yeah, I actually found Jared Gilmore as Pan-in-Henry better than Robbie Kay as Henry-in-Pan. Gilmore managed to get Pan's mannerisms down much better than Kay did Henry's--though I wonder if that doesn't also speak to the fact that Henry doesn't really have a whole lot that's distinctive about him. Henry these days is pretty weak as a character, he's been almost entirely reduced to being Regina's cheerleader.

[KingOfHearts]

I didn't find him very convincing as Henry, either... but I liked him better than Henry. Maybe it was because he was older and fit better with the adults, or it was just Robbie's superior acting skills. I'd take Robbie over Jared any day. I'd drop one for the other in a split second.

[Mari]

I didn't find him very convincing as Henry, either... but I liked him better than Henry. Maybe it was because he was older and fit better with the adults, or it was just Robbie's superior acting skills. I'd take Robbie over Jared any day. I'd drop one for the other in a split second.

Could some of it have been the age discrepancy thing?  He was older than Henry was supposed to be, but he was supposed to be older than Henry was supposed to be.  While Jared as Pan did a better job of being Pan than Robbie as Henry, when we looked at Robbie pretending to be eleven, we knew he wasn't supposed to be eleven, while Jared was.

 

(Huh.  That's pretty convoluted.  I'm not sure I could explain that easily to people who don't fan OUAT.)

[KAOS Agent]

It's also a lot easier to act evil and menacing than it is the bland idiot that is Henry. Henry doesn't have any characteristics/mannerisms to play up, while making Pan as Henry wasn't difficult. Although truthfully, Pan was never particularly menacing in terms of his appearance. He never really went as dark as Jared took him as Pan. Pan was creepy, but some of that was because he was sort of light in his delivery. Which actually makes the way Jared play Pan not very in character for Pan, but creepy evil Henry struck a chord with the audience who are used to "I want to be a hero" Henry. 

[HoodlumSheep]

I thought Robbie played Henry well enough. Where as with Jared as Pan I just sort of giggled when he tried to be menacing. I feel sort of guilty. Actually, now that i think about it, i giggled at Pan!Henry too. I love this show. It makes me smile!

[Camera One]

He never really went as dark as Jared took him as Pan. 

 

Once Peter Pan was himself, he was debating between whether to kill Neal or Belle first, so maybe he was as dark as that.  Who knows, since his goals/methods in Neverland were different from his eventual plan and actions in Storybrooke.

 

I do agree it is easier to play delicious evil than the straight-man.  That's why I sometimes feel it is easier for the villains like Regina, Rumple, Cora, Peter Pan or Zelena to make an impression, compared to creating a good guy personae like Emma, Snow or Charming.  

 

I would argue that anyone given Henry's lines/role from Season 2 onwards as Mindless Regina Defender would have been annoying.  I think Jared has awesome chemistry with Emma in particular.  They haven't really given him a chance with Snow and only limited time with Charming in 2A.  I thought his scenes with Hook and Neal were pretty good as well.  This season has been rough on his acting front, but I will attribute that to him adjusting to his changing voice.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

From the "Will Scarlet" thread.

 

 

I don't think characters like Grumpy and Granny need to be "stale" and it makes me sad when viewers don't give them a chance, which basically reinforces the writers continuing to use them as glorified extras and filling whatever convenient role needs to be filled.

 

Oh, I agree. They have reduced Grumpy to Town Crier, and Granny has way more depth than to act as a bully to Mary Margaret, especially considering what she and her family have been through. The cast has become so bloated, that the writers have relegated old faithful characters to the side-lines. 

[Shanna Marie]

But just because Regina's "trying," everyone's just going to forget what she did to them? That's not normal; the normal response to betrayed trust to the point where people are dead is the response that gets portrayed as "Oh poor Regina:" the hurt party backs away and don't even want to talk to the perpetrator again, never mind trust him or her.

I've been ragging a lot on Robin for not having shown any sign at all of being at all bothered by what he apparently learned Regina did to Marian, but he's certainly not alone. Emma has been doing something similar. She just escaped from Regina's dungeon with Marian, knows she and Marian were scheduled for execution, and watched Regina gleefully burn her mother at the stake, which she found horribly traumatizing. Then she comes back to Storybrooke and wants to introduce Marian to Regina as though she's totally okay with Regina now? And then she feels bad about ruining Regina's happy ending by saving Marian? That's not even good-guy normal behavior. Even if she has enough awareness to know that Regina isn't currently burning people at the stake, I would think that it would be very hard for Emma to deal with Regina right now after her Enchanted Forest experience. She now knows exactly what Regina put her parents through, that Regina's vendetta against Snow was a really serious, potentially deadly thing, not just some silly curse that moved the fairy tale world to Maine. It should have totally changed Emma's perspective of Regina and made her wary of her. Instead, they're making her act like Regina is her friend, as though none of these very recent experiences affected Emma at all.

 

Henry doesn't have any characteristics/mannerisms to play up, while making Pan as Henry wasn't difficult.

I think that had a lot to do with it. Robbie Kay created a pretty three-dimensional portrayal of Pan, with distinct body language, mannerisms and speech patterns. That was a lot to work with, so it would be fairly easy to imitate what he did, even for a younger, less-experienced actor. The foundation work was done for him. With Henry, what is there to work with? All his traits are there on the page, not really part of the portrayal. I can't think of anything in his speech patterns that's distinct, other than perhaps a weird enthusiasm that sometimes shows up. There's no bit of body language or mannerism that says "Henry" to me. Henry boils down to wanting cinnamon on his hot cocoa and being really gullible. I don't think anyone could have stepped into that role and been distinctly Henry because there's no there there.

[Rumsy4]

 

I don't think anyone could have stepped into that role and been distinctly Henry because there's no there there.

 

I agree with that, but if Robbie had knocked off his eyebrow game when he was playing Henry, it would have gone a long way towards being convincing. 

[KingOfHearts]

 

I agree with that, but if Robbie had knocked off his eyebrow game when he was playing Henry, it would have gone a long way towards being convincing.

Haha, I just remembered Pan's eyebrows. That was three-fourths of the acting right there.

 

I wish we would have gotten more scenes of him just messing with each of the cast. He'd have a field day with Regina and Snow. Maybe we can bring the Jabberwocky over from Wonderland along with Will. Hehe.

[Shanna Marie]

if Robbie had knocked off his eyebrow game when he was playing Henry, it would have gone a long way towards being convincing.

Now I'm imagining him going, "But I've got to do something! I can't just stand there stiffly and recite my lines woodenly. Oops, the eyebrows gotta do what the eyebrows gotta do. I shouldn't have let my face move."

 

Pan should have had more scenes with Hook. Robbie and Colin could have had an eyebrow duel to the death, the battle of the prehensile eyebrows.

 

Also, Robbie Kay needs to be cast in something as Thomas Sangster's brother because in all the trailers for The Mazerunner, I was thinking good for Robbie for getting a new role, and it turned out that it was actually Thomas Sangster.

[Camera One]

I think that had a lot to do with it. Robbie Kay created a pretty three-dimensional portrayal of Pan, with distinct body language, mannerisms and speech patterns. That was a lot to work with, so it would be fairly easy to imitate what he did, even for a younger, less-experienced actor. The foundation work was done for him. With Henry, what is there to work with? All his traits are there on the page, not really part of the portrayal. I can't think of anything in his speech patterns that's distinct, other than perhaps a weird enthusiasm that sometimes shows up. There's no bit of body language or mannerism that says "Henry" to me. Henry boils down to wanting cinnamon on his hot cocoa and being really gullible. I don't think anyone could have stepped into that role and been distinctly Henry because there's no there there.

 

Having lots of distinctive mannerisms doesn't necessarily mean Peter Pan was all that three-dimensional.  

 

I agree Henry doesn't have anything distinctive in his mannerisms, which made it tough, but I don't think it was necessarily impossible.  I think Henry tends to talk in surges so his speech is not very smooth, which could have been imitated.  I didn't really feel innocence when I saw Pan-as-Henry... that is tough since Kay is a lot older, but production could have helped with a subtle change in hair, and maybe wardrobe would have helped (since the actor does sometimes look younger in real life).  I agree with Rumsy's point plus he could have tried to soften his expression a little.  Henry exhibits deeper feeling, stronger emotions and more naivete which could have been portrayed.  Slightly changing the accent would also help.  I saw absolutely no difference in Kay's performance between Peter Pan vs. Henry, so just about anything would have helped.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Camera One

[HoodlumSheep]

Now I'm imagining him going, "But I've got to do something! I can't just stand there stiffly and recite my lines woodenly. Oops, the eyebrows gotta do what the eyebrows gotta do. I shouldn't have let my face move."

Pan should have had more scenes with Hook. Robbie and Colin could have had an eyebrow duel to the death, the battle of the prehensile eyebrows.

This. Robbie and colin were great together. I really wish they would of focused more on the Neverland aspects more. I loved the dark, twisty, lord of the flies vibe it had, but neverland could have been a really fun adventure arc too. Lost boys, pirates, mermaids, fairies, natives, peter pan mind games galore! 3a was still one of my favorite arcs though, despite it's flaws. I'm also kind of happy that they kept it to a half season.

Wicked on the other hand could have been almost a full season. I wish it was more like 15 episodes. When you think about, Wicked was only 8/9 episodes long (did I count that right?). NYCS didn't have much Wizard of Oz in it besides walsh turning out to be a monkey and i think an end scene(my memory is quite hazy). And obviously the 2 part finale can't really be counted as part of the Wicked aspect either. So Wicked kind of got gypped (don't know how to spell that word).

How long was the Cora arc? Did it end up equalling about a half season or a little more? If it was more, then i feel that would have been a good length to have the Wicked arc.

They really should have kept the sort of whodunnit? Feel they had going in Witch Hunt for longer (even though the audience knew a that point, and i suppose that would have frustrated people also).

I admit i didn't hate the Wicked arc, although I can definitely see why some seem to loathe it. One of my favorite episodes ( besides the finale), was probably Witch hunt. It had that whodunnit? Feel, a more real sense of danger (being turned into flying monkeys), emma and regina could tolerate and work together, you had missing year flashbacks that seemed like they were going to continue slowly unraveling the mystery of who the wicked witch was and what she wanted, the secondary cast was been utilized (maybe not as well as in season one, but better than what's currently happening in season 4), rumple ws still presumed dead and neal was missing.

I even wouldn't of minded Zelena's shallow jealousy and turning green with envy as much if they actually showed her suffering and her poor situation in life better than in a single measley flashback or two.

[Dani-Ellie]

I even wouldn't of minded Zelena's shallow jealousy and turning green with envy as much if they actually showed her suffering and her poor situation in life better than in a single measley flashback or two.

 

This. Zelena's father was a dink, but her mother seemed to be loving. And I would have loved it if being on the receiving end of an irrational vendetta had led to a massive dose of self-awareness on Regina's part about how she's treated Snow, but alas.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Dani-Ellie