A Thread for All Seasons: OUaT Across All Realms

[Camera One]

The more recent sword fights have been much more sanitized, with them not even fighting like they're using sharp objects. It's like they aim at the opponent's sword rather than aiming at the other person.

 

Has there really been that much sword fighting lately?  In S3, they were fighting against Peter Pan and Lost boys in 3A and they were fighting Zelena and Flying Monkeys in 3B.   I don't applaud the show for much but I think it's refreshing for a show not giving in to the public's bloodlust satiated by shows like "The Games of Thrones" and "The Walking Dead" (in S1 and S2, there were several occasions where they did give in to deathlust, if not to excessive bloodlust).  

 

What I do have an issue with is most of the dangers and maladies in S3 were magic-induced, which can make it slightly hokey, if not done right.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Camera One

[KAOS Agent]

Maybe the lack of bloody deaths is more that these aren't necessarily bad guys. We know that Graham was forced into being a black knight against his will. Maybe others are in her service in the same way. It's not like Regina would inspire a whole lot of loyalty in her army given her tendency to kill the messenger. They don't deserve to die in a pool of their own blood. The knights attacking Charming in the Pilot were actively trying to kill a newborn baby. They were very obviously bad. They didn't fight fair. They will spill blood in their quest to kill the Saviour and David was justified in going all in on killing them. 

 

In the Hook/Rumpel sword fight we don't get blood (mostly because Hook wears black, so it wouldn't show), but Rumpel had a defenseless Hook on his back and was standing there grinding the sword into Hook's side when Milah showed up. They didn't shy away from that. But again, you have villain on villain, so maybe it's okay.

 

On the other hand, we also have Rumpel's blood soaked apron from when he was relentlessly torturing Robin. We don't see the torture, but we do see some of the aftermath. It's hard to say what's acceptable on this show. I'd say that maybe some of it has to do with budget - both time & money. They're not spending time on fake blood and costume changes and clean-up when shooting these scenes, so they have options to get more takes, better camera angles, etc as well as be more efficient in terms of filming in general. 

[Shanna Marie]

Has there really been that much sword fighting lately?

There was Hook vs. the guards and Charming vs. at least one guard in the season 3 finale and Hook vs. Blackbeard in "The Jolly Roger." Otherwise, I think this is something I'll have to look for in my rewatch to see if my perceptions are skewed.

 

I really don't want anything on the level of Game of Thrones because I have to avert my eyes from most fight scenes in that series. But on the other hand, it gets silly when people fighting with swords but only hitting each other with elbows. If nobody gets hurt or tries to hurt the other person, then the stakes are pretty low. I'm not talking about spurting blood, but at least attempting to make a thrust or two, maybe a photogenic cut with a little blood or a tear in a shirt with a little blood showing. If there's a fight with no risk of anyone getting hurt and no one actually trying to hurt the other person, it gets kind of pointless. I do think the Charming vs. guards fight in the pilot struck a good middle ground, where you really felt like they were fighting for their lives, not just playing around, and there was enough blood to show the seriousness of it while still not being so gory as to be gross (no one bit off anyone's ear, for instance).

 

I guess there's also a time and a place for a pure swashbuckling swing from the chandeliers and clash swords without any real violence kind of fight, and that may have been what they were going for in the finale. They may also have been deliberately taking that tone with Blackbeard since a lot of that fight choreography came right out of the animated Peter Pan movie from the fight between Hook and Pan, with Hook here in the Pan role and Blackbeard playing Hook's role. I'll keep an eye on the fight scenes as I rewatch to see if they really have been growing "safer" or if it's just comparing a few non-representative samples. It is weird that they were shying away from bloodshed in the sword fighting in the finale while showing a woman apparently being burned at the stake.

[kili]

Maybe the lack of bloody deaths is more that these aren't necessarily bad guys.

 

This is also relevant in the battle with the Lost Boys. They are still mentally boys. The heros seem reluctant to harm the Lost Boys specifically because they are boys. The boys clearly don't have that same policy because Charms does get a fairly decent wound from them. They also cheerfully shoot an arrow gruesomely through Tamara (which Rumple later heals before ripping out her heart).

 

Ariel sticks a dinglehopper into Regina's neck which was a little shocking (if not all that bloody). Regina also gets stabbed in the neck with a straight edge razor by her sister (but it turns out to be Rumple who is untroubled by being stabbed).

 

Rumple stabs Pan in the back - and then twists the knife. He later stabs Zelena in the stomach. In both cases, rather than bleeding on the floor, they crumble and/or disappear into smoke. 

 

Flying monkeys take a walloping. Walsh is beaten with a lead pipe, thrown off a building and is probably the one shot in the neck by Robin (he has a neck scar in the New York scenes). Several monkeys get turned into smoke during the boathouse battle with the good guys showing no qualms about shooting, fire balling and impaling monkeys who could be their friends (whether they die or just poof, we do not know). The monkies themselves are pretty scary.

 

The show isn't all that big on blood even in past seasons. There wasn't any when Rumple cut off Hook's hand (we should have gotten some arterial spray and pumping action), but he could have healed it magically so that he ensured Hook lived to suffer the mental trauma as intended. We didn't see a lot of blood when Charming killed George's soldiers when they attacked when he was visiting his Mom. Even Red just gets a little blood on her chin.

[KingOfHearts]

Charming stabbed the Siren, iirc. They showed the blood bleeding into the water.

 

I'm okay with action, as long as it's relevant to the plot and it's logical with the story. Random action for eye candy isn't my cup of tea. That's just me personally. I know a lot of people love it. (Which is probably why superhero movies do so well at the box office)

Edited June 17, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[stealinghome]

In 2x03, Charming managed to take out like six of George's men without any visible blood on their clothing or his sword (easily the most graphic part of that fight was him snapping the one guard's neck--which I actually am surprised that they put in there). I always love Charming being a badass, but that did take me out of that fight scene. (Though that episode did win points back for having some blood on Ruth's dress as she died.) Also, it was seriously silly that In Neverland David never had any bloodstains on his clothing from his arrow wound. You can't convince me that wound wouldn't have bled at least a little.

 

Generally speaking, in principle, I'm not bothered by the lack of blood on the show--there's only been an instance or two where I have found it ridiculous (see above). It bothers me more in the sense of it seems like another symptom of the kiddification, Saturday-morning-cartoonification of the show, which I feel has really hurt the show.

[kili]

Generally speaking, in principle, I'm not bothered by the lack of blood on the show--there's only been an instance or two where I have found it ridiculous (see above).

 

I had a problem with Blackbeard being eaten by the sharks. There was no blood in the water, just bubbles. I'm not even entirely sure he's dead because of that. Maybe he was just mobbed by a Scuba diving class and they decided to rescue him.

 

We didn't even get a fin.

Edited June 17, 2014 by kili

[KAOS Agent]

Neal was shot in the chest with a .38, fell through a portal and laid face down on the beach until Aurora and co found him, yet all he had to show for it was a tiny hole in his shirt. He should have been a bloody mess and at the very least his shirt would have been a total write off, but no he was wearing the same clothes in Neverland as he was when he got shot in Storybrooke. 

[stealinghome]

Oh yeah...I totally forgot about that (probably because there was no blood!), but I side-eye that harder than any of the examples I listed above.

 

Then again, Neal probably shouldn't have been able to be up and about until a week later minimum. So it's not like that lack of blood was the biggest stretching of disbelief there!

[Camera One]

Ha, great points KAOS Agent and stealinghome.  I was going to reply in the Nitpicks thread but there wasn't one so started one.  

[Shanna Marie]

Generally speaking, in principle, I'm not bothered by the lack of blood on the show--there's only been an instance or two where I have found it ridiculous (see above). It bothers me more in the sense of it seems like another symptom of the kiddification, Saturday-morning-cartoonification of the show, which I feel has really hurt the show.

That's the issue for me, that the bloodlessness is a symptom of the cartoonification process. I'm a big fan of consequences, so while I'm not a huge fan of Game of Thrones-level gore, I'm also not crazy about cartoon violence, where all kinds of horrible things happen but nobody really gets hurt for more than about five seconds and there's no blood. I think it's actually a wiser message to a child audience that when there's violence or fighting, people do get hurt. We don't need buckets of blood, but some cuts and bruises would make sense. When weapons come out, bad things happen to people. And if someone attacks you with a weapon, it's okay to defend yourself.

 

Maybe he was just mobbed by a Scuba diving class and they decided to rescue him.

That is a spectacular mental image.

[Camera One]

That's the issue for me, that the bloodlessness is a symptom of the cartoonification process.

 

Since this show is basically a real-life fairy tale, I accept a level of cartoonishness.  If the plot is realistic and the character consequences are evident (which has not been the case in S3), I would be emotionally affected and I would *believe* the plot whether there is blood or not.  For me, character development, plot pacing/planning, consistent universe building, balance between character vs plot and equitable/less biased distribution of screentime are much more important and problems in those aspects are resulting in the cartoonification process.

Edited June 17, 2014 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

For me, character development, plot pacing/planning, consistent universe building, balance between character vs plot and equitable/less biased distribution of screentime are much more important and problems in those aspects are resulting in the cartoonification process.

Well, yes, but on this show? With plot, plot, plot, fear of those oh-so-boring conversations between characters where they talk about their feelings (horrors!), plot-driven temporary character changes, pet characters who function under different rules, and all that, I figured that the occasional bit of blood when sharp, pointy weapons are in use in an action sequence might be the most realistic chance of seeing actual consequences. I'm not holding my breath on the rest of that stuff.

 

But I won't ask for actual consequences of serious head injuries. Otherwise, Hook would be permanently brain-damaged by now, and possibly sharing a room with David in the long-term care facility. I think those two have been knocked out more than your average NFL quarterback, and without the benefit of helmets.

[Dani-Ellie]

From the villains thread:

It's strange how they've kind of whitewashed that [Regina's awfulness in the beginning of the series], not by acting like it didn't happen, but by acting like it somehow didn't matter.

This is my exact problem with Regina's redemption arc as executed. This notion that it's all just water under the bridge and "but she's changed now and that's all that should matter."

No, no it's not. Tell that to Snow and Charming, who missed their firstborn's entire life. Tell that to Emma, who spent the first 28 years of her life alone. Tell that to Snow, who now has to live the rest of her life without her father. Tell that to all those families who lost the children Regina sent into the Blind Witch's house. And so on and so on.

Regina's actions destroyed lives. Innocent lives, and those lives matter. And the funny thing is, I'm not opposed to redeeming Regina. The problem is, I need to be shown why I should care about her redemption, and when she doesn't care about or even address the lives she destroyed, I find it hard to care about her. There's obviously no way she can ever make up for the evil she's done, in a realistic sense, but treating her atrocities as the atrocities they were and treating her victims with the respect they deserve would go a long way. A little remorse on Regina's part and attempt an apology from her would go a very long way.

Because I'm sorry but she victimized people and the notion that those victims are just supposed to suck it up because "she's changed now" is, frankly, disgusting, to me.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Dani-Ellie

[YaddaYadda]

I used to enjoy Regina because she was just an unapologetic bitch.  The whitewash of the character has gone over like a led balloon.  I'm having a really difficult time with the whole thing.  I was actually ok with the way things were handled in 3A, but not in 3B where she became this paragon of sorts.

 

I'm especially not okay that they had Henry be all about how he shouldn't have gone to find Emma in "Going Home" and I'm not ok with her being able to TLK or produce light magic without her heart.  That went way too far imo.  Regina had some 35 years of being crazy ass messed up nutcase who didn't care who she hurt because the end justified the means for her.  I think her full redemption arc should have played out at the end of the show as opposed to rushing through it like that.

 

But really, my question in this is what do you do with a character like Regina after you've whitewashed her like that? 

[stealinghome]

But really, my question in this is what do you do with a character like Regina after you've whitewashed her like that?

This is why I really don't understand why they felt it was so necessary to rush her redemption arc (slash whitewashing).

[Camera One]

I'm especially not okay that they had Henry be all about how he shouldn't have gone to find Emma in "Going Home"

 

That was just downright offensive.  As you said, that went way too far.  

[KingOfHearts]

 

I'm especially not okay that they had Henry be all about how he shouldn't have gone to find Emma in "Going Home"

 

That was such a stupid line for Henry to say. I'm sorry, but that doesn't even compute with me. Henry was downright miserable until Emma came to town. Sometimes I don't know what Henry's thinking - like that time when he tried to blow up magic with dynamite at the well, or when he gave his heart to Pan with his parents pleading for him not to. They keep saying he's a smart kid, but then he goes to do stuff like that...

 

 

I used to enjoy Regina because she was just an unapologetic bitch.

Same. That's probably why I enjoyed Cora so much. Cora and Mayor Mills were evil and they owned it. They got crap done. There was no "They're just misunderstood!". I eventually want Regina to redeem herself, but it's been way too early. It's like watching two different characters played by the same actress. There's no coherency at all.

 

The writers just can't decide if they want her to be evil or not. So they attempt to do both. As Rumple says, "You can't have everything, dearie!"

Edited June 18, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

Sometimes I don't know what Henry's thinking - like that time when he tried to blow up magic with dynamite at the well

 

I don't know what Henry was thinking but I know what the writers were thinking.  The dynamite episode was to show how Snow, Charming and Emma are "just as bad" as Regina, and to show how Regina would not take revenge for the death of her mother, because she loves Henry so much.   I absolutely hate how the writers destroyed Henry's character starting mid-Season 2 and they've been hammering away ever since.

[YaddaYadda]

Henry either needs to go or put the cheerleader pompoms away.  I'd rather watch Belle (no offense to Belle fans) for 60 mins droning on then 5 minutes of Henry telling me how light magic awesome Regina is.

 

Can't they have him behave like a pre-teen and keep to his bedroom?

[Camera One]

Regina had some 35 years of being crazy ass messed up nutcase who didn't care who she hurt because the end justified the means for her.  I think her full redemption arc should have played out at the end of the show as opposed to rushing through it like that.

But really, my question in this is what do you do with a character like Regina after you've whitewashed her like that?

 

It all goes back to horrible plotting, and in regards to progression and rewards for the character.

 

2A: They started a path of redemption.  She was rejected by Henry (rightly so).  She made an attempt to stop using magic.

 

2B: They erased that with Regina going back to Cora without even an internal struggle.  It was all blamed on the "good guys" having too little faith in her.  Then she does something (fail safe) which is completely evil disregarding the lives of everyone in Storybrooke.  Meanwhile, in flashbacks, they go way overboard and have her massacre a village.

 

2B Finale: Suddenly, she decides AGAIN that she's going to try doing the right thing.  Twice in a season?  Really?  But this time, it's the ultimate sacrifice so we, Snow, Henry, everyone, is supposed to forgive her.

 

3A: This was probably the only string of episodes in recent memory where Regina redemption and progression was paced appropriately.  She owns up that she did ruin Tinkerbelle's life.  She tries her best to work with her enemies.  

 

3A Last String of Episodes: Way over-handed with "Welcome to Storybrooke" and then in "Going Home", Henry completely forgiving Regina, wishing he had never gone to find Emma, realizing that Regina loved him ALL ALONG.  Grab everyone a motion sickness bag.

 

3B: Here, as if things have been going *too* well, the writers go overboard and ruin everything they did right.  By the end of the season, Regina not only gets to see Henry again and another chance at a relationship with him, he regains his memories of her, we get bashed in the head about how much he knows she loves him AND Regina gets Robin Hood interested in her, extolling her virtues AND she gets Snow's forgiveness and blessing (since Snow's entire family tree destroys lives by not keeping secrets - gasp everyone gasp!) AND she gets to do Light Magic, to break the Curse by kissing Henry, to defeat Zelena (sorry Savior, we didn't actually need you except as Henry's chaperone).

 

How can this be mapped out on a white board and no one can see the problems with it?  When the entire board probably has the name Regina on it, it's obvious there's a *slight* imbalance.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

Regina's main problem all along has been that she's selfish and lacking in empathy -- that "the only happy ending I care about is mine" attitude -- and her so-called redemption so far hasn't contradicted that because she's been siding with the good guys in her own best interest. In 2B I guess she was willing to sacrifice herself for the town, but it was to undo the evil she set in motion, so I don't consider that counting (and it was going to kill Henry). 3A was about saving Henry. 3B was about her sister wanting to monkey with the timeline in a way that would have erased her existence (and likely Henry's).

 

I'll be more likely to believe that she's no longer utterly selfish when she teams up with the good guys just because it's the right thing to do, with no real benefit to herself, and possibly because she knows that the bad thing that might happen would cause pain to someone else. Like, say, if Hook were in danger, would she lift a finger to help him, since he's nothing to her and it would be a stretch for even Henry to consider him family? Or, even more distant, Belle (though I guess technically she's now a step-grandmother to Henry, even though they don't have any real relationship yet). She did save Roland from the monkey, but saving a small child from a monster isn't a huge test of humanity. I want to know if she'd put herself out there to help when she doesn't stand to benefit, if she'd even notice someone else's pain and suffering and act to ease it.

 

With Henry, there could have been a truly interesting arc in which she had to try to build a relationship with him after treating him like a possession during his whole childhood. Instead, they skipped over the interesting stuff and handwaved away all the season one stuff she did so that now she's this awesome mom who loves him with True Love, even if she hasn't done anything that erases the image of her sitting there with a smug, victorious smile because she succeeded in hurting her child, where all she could see was that she'd scored against Emma and didn't even care about her child's pain.

[stealinghome]

I think the problem with Regina beginning in S2 is a combination of a) the writers falling in love with Regina('s tears) and letting their Regina Boner take over too much and b) feeling like they really, really needed to justify why Team Charming would lift so much as a finger to save Regina's life. Like, as much as we joke about it, I think the writers are actually painfully aware of how ridiculous it is that the Charmings are willing to team up with Regina--that's the whole reason they've whitewashed/retconned a lot of her crimes and general badness away, and have thrown Henry and Snow under the bus (in different ways): to push the idea that Regina is Happy Families with the Charmings. Because they actually do get that really, Regina was made so heinous in S1 that it just makes no sense that Snow and Charming wouldn't just have said to Emma and Henry in 2x01 "Suck it up, Regina's dying, it's a public service." Unfortunately, while they started with that insight (that they needed to provide a compelling reason that Snow and Charming wouldn't just kill Regina for the purposes of public safety, and might even be willing to team up with her on occasion)--which in and of itself was fine--the PLOT PLOT PLOT! train, their Regina Permaboner, and their real lack of interest in character/relationships/long-term story arcs then combined to run the treatment of the character really off the rails.

 

Someone really needs to print out a bunch of signs that say "If you have to whitewash a character's crimes or retcon away a large chunk of their history, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. FIND ANOTHER WAY." and plaster it all over the writers' room.

 

And btw this all applies to Rumpel--it hasn't been as egregious in his case, but it's the same basic problem (though the writers don't love Carlyle/Rumpel nearly as much as they love Regina/Parrilla).

[Camera One]

hat's the whole reason they've whitewashed/retconned a lot of her crimes and general badness away, and have thrown Henry and Snow under the bus (in different ways): to push the idea that Regina is Happy Families with the Charmings.

 

Well said.  The entire Snow-dark-heart plot was designed for this very purpose.  The "If you hadn't..., then Regina wouldn't have..." logic started in S1 just kept piling on itself in S2 (and even Cora got this treatment in the flashback in "Bleeding Through").

[maryle]

The problem with Regina arc it that they will look foolish to make Evil again. They could have at her deal with the consequence on an emotional level with the others the Charming clan, Belle and Rumple. But it will necessitate a lot of gay writing and kitchen conversation. They told us it's not what they want. They believe it must be a big bad shock after a another without slowly the pace. And for that to happen they have to make the charming clan forgive Regina because she redeem herself how killing Zelena.

 

So they choose to bring back Maid Marian to have Regina face some dire consequence and they risk to give in in soap territory there. But after, this arc when OQ are back together I'm wondering where her arc can go? Certainly not going evil again and the soapy triangle will be done. It really seem they rush her redemption is in it?

[stealinghome]

It really seem they rush her redemption is in it?

Yes, and I really don't understand why. Like, if you look back at S2B/S3, it's increasingly obvious that they actually don't know what to do with Regina, so they have to keep coming up with some external force that challenges her/makes her unhappy and causes her to do something (and that's part of what's really killing the character, imo). Regina seems to have been relatively allied with the Charmings at the end of 2A...so we have to bring Cora in to fundamentally turn her against them again. But we don't want the Charmings to kill Regina despite the fact that she tries multiple times to kill them all in 2B...so we have to bring in Pan to kidnap Henry. In 3A they handled her decently, but they still "gave" Henry back to her and then took him away. And then 3B was all about giving Regina everything she wants (and doesn't yet deserve): Henry, Robin, the whitest of white magic, true love, etc etc etc--only to bring in Marian, so that 4A is inevitably going to be Regina throwing a shit fit because she feels like one of her toys got taken away again.

 

It's frustrating, because the writers keep giving Regina everything she wants, but then realizing that that makes her "boring" or doesn't give her much of a story--so they then keep taking away the things she wants. They've fallen into a cycle of needing external stimuli for Regina's storylines, and it's locking the character into a really repetitive (and increasingly eyeroll-worthy cycle) of being reactive. Whereas they wouldn't have to do that if they would just commit to giving her a true, season-long redemption arc where she (and they) deal with the fact that she was a truly terrible person, where she begins to actually gain some empathy and want to make restitution to her victims, maybe even have a few regrets, etc. Like I actually don't understand how that shit doesn't just write itself--Xena got like 7 seasons out of this very arc! But with one or two exceptions, the writers take every opportunity to avoid writing that storyline. I just don't understand. It makes no narrative sense to rush to give Regina everything on a silver platter and then realize "oh shit, we have to take it away to make her 'interesting'" when you could just avoid it by avoiding the silver dish in the first place.

 

And while I obviously can't stand the Regina character, I also can't imagine that people who like Regina enjoy watching this either, you know? I mean, there are always the Regina stans who lap up anything the show does with her and proclaim it the brilliantest! thing! ever!, but I've also seen a fair amount of tumblr posts and whatnot from people who say "it really sucks that Regina is constantly made unhappy to make the show go forward." And I'm pretty sure that if they did this to the Charmings, my favorites, I'd be pretty pissed too. At a certain point, it just starts to feel sadistic for fans of that character, and generally speaking that's no fun to watch.

 

(And again I'd note that they keep doing with with Rumpel, too--giving him what he wants and taking it away. Though again to a lesser degree than Regina.)

 

 

[ETA: Also, I would note that I think the show actually has no clue what to do with most of its characters, fundamentally because they're just not interested in character/relationships. It's why both Charming and Emma didn't get any storylines in season 2. But I'm frustrated with the treatment of Regina in particular because I hate the way they've whitewashed her crimes and because she's become the focal plot point of the show. And also because they have a nasty tendency of making Snow in particular's story about Regina, too.]

Edited June 19, 2014 by stealinghome

[Shanna Marie]

And btw this all applies to Rumpel--it hasn't been as egregious in his case, but it's the same basic problem

I think one thing that may affect the perception of Rumple vs. Regina is that when we first meet her and through the whole first season, she's in a position of power in both storylines. She's the Evil Queen in the Enchanted Forest, and she's the mayor in Storybrooke who has her heel on the throat of just about everyone in town, able to control the sheriff, make the doctor report to her, make the psychologist do her bidding and make everyone refuse to rent a room to Emma. When we first meet Rumple, he's in prison, behind bars. We don't meet Mr. Gold until the end of the pilot, and while there's an air of menace about him and he's clearly in a position of some power (Granny seems cowed by him), he's not at all on the same level as Regina. Then when we find out why he's doing what he's doing, it makes some kind of sense, unlike with Regina, where it was a case of "Seriously?"

 

I just rewatched "Snow Falls," and now I'm remembering how frustrated I got during the first season when Regina had all the power and was able to manipulate everything to her advantage. I almost couldn't deal with the injustice of it all. As nasty as she was even in Storybrooke, I'm finding it harder and harder to believe the current "happy families" situation. She should have had to do something even bigger and more unselfish than undoing her own backfiring evil plot to earn their trust. And she definitely should have had to wait longer to start getting handed everything she wanted. If she'd really had to work for her redemption on an ongoing basis, had faced consequences for her actions, and had seemed to have any regret, and especially if she'd had to overcome a lot, I'd probably have been in her corner, cheering her on. Instead, she's the worst kind of Mary Sue, where the writers are incapable of writing her objectively and keep giving her unearned rewards.

 

On an entirely different note, I'm thinking that it may have been for the best that Graham was a dead man walking rather than kept around as a serious long-term love interest for Emma. Jamie Dornan may be pretty, but bless his heart, he's not much of an actor. He sounds like he's trying very, very hard to remember his lines and say them, or else perhaps reading them off cue cards, which doesn't leave much room for inflection or nuance. I've found myself cringing through every one of his scenes so far every time he opens his mouth. Oh honey, just stand there and look pretty. It's for the best.

[KAOS Agent]

Rewatching Season 1 of this show gives me whiplash because Regina was really truly horrible and the more I'm reminded of the things she did, both in Storybrooke and in the Enchanted Forest, the less the Regina redemption arc works for me. It is highly disturbing to see them just gloss over the lives she destroyed because she's good now. It's not even that I can't see her become redeemed, but damn does she need to experience some justice for her actions. And this sort of whitewashing/ignoring of crimes has bled into the actor's comments. Lana laughed about how Regina had murdered Marian, but she was just a random peasant to her and unimportant. It's not like she knew or cared about Peasant #198. Ha ha. Yeah, that's just hysterical. I know she doesn't mean for it to come off the way it does, but her attitude there reflects how the show has chosen to address or rather not address Regina's actions against people who are not really associated with the Charmings.

 

The use of Henry to cover for Regina is also particularly egregious. The kid who believes in heroes and good always winning turns around and tells his mom he was sorry and shouldn't have ever gotten Emma. Ignoring what that says about Henry's relationship with Emma, the Charmings and Neal, yeah, it would have been so great to leave an entire town of innocent people cursed and miserable just because it made Regina sad to have to face the consequences of her actions. That was the start of them going too far with the Regina whitewash. Once the heroes start ignoring the damage done to the randoms in favor of propping Regina, you've got problems.

 

I'd also say that the Evil Queen persona is what attracts a lot of fans. Now that she's white magic and true love and puppies and rainbows and the New!Improved!Saviour, where can they go? If she regresses, then 3B is even more of a farce than it already was. If she doesn't, then she's boring as hell. And they can't keep going back to the Evil Queen of the past well because the more evil deeds she commits in the past, the harder it is to overcome my revulsion at her getting a happy ending while hundreds of innocent people who were collateral damage in her revenge quest are rotting in their graves. There really is nowhere to go with Regina. 

[KingOfHearts]

It would be so freaking easy to redeem Regina the right way, and they don't. That's what makes me mad. I'm a Regina fan, so I sort of speak for her group. I too get so irritated about the way she's handled.

 

All it could take to put Regina on the right track would be a simple apology to Snow for making her life crap. In Bleeding Through, all the planets were aligned for that moment - and the writers skipped it. If Regina would just acknowledge other people's feelings, she could go a long way. After all she's been through, you'd think she would have years ago. 

 

It's a catch 22 situation. She would be more entertaining as villain, but it wouldn't make logical sense at the same time. I seriously believe they're trying to leave Regina ambiguous on her redemption just to keep viewers on their toes. I'd be fine if she was good OR evil, but being dark gray isn't working. It's like a house of cards.

Edited June 19, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[stealinghome]

I think one thing that may affect the perception of Rumple vs. Regina is that when we first meet her and through the whole first season, she's in a position of power in both storylines.

For me, the difference has to do with a few things. First, quite simply Rumpel's morality shifts haven't been nearly as dramatic as Regina's (to the point where it's really arguable whether Rumpel has changed at all). Regina has gone from Evilest Evil and Goodest Good and back again and back again, whereas imo Rumpel has always been dark gray, and maybe he's gotten a little lighter, but the show hasn't gone around giving him the Whitest of White Magic, you know? His extremes aren't nearly as extreme, and while there has definitely been backsliding (if any movement at all), his arc feels more coherent as a result. Second, because Neal died, it actually does feel like Rumpel paid a karmic price for all his evil in a way that Regina hasn't. Third, they haven't forced Rumpel on the Charmings as part of the Happy Family in the same way they have with Regina, nor have they lapsed into victim-blaming or forcing his victims to kiss his ass (also as they have with Regina...say what you want about her hypocrisy or wtfever, I stood up and fucking applauded when Belle demanded an apology from Regina, because at least someone on this show did and refused to let Regina slide on her many and horrible crimes). The show doesn't pretend he's redeemed when he's not, and they don't use a sob backstory to excuse his evil (I've always found that Rumpel's fairybacks make him more understandable but not any less guilty, whereas Regina's fairybacks inevitably come across as passing the back on her ethical culpability--oh, it was Cora's or Rumpel's or Snow's or the mean turtle that got in the way of her carriage's fault, poor wikkle Regina really isn't responsible). Fourth, the writers simply don't have a Rumpel permaboner...they don't give him everything he wants on a silver platter. Like, he never truly "got" Neal back, not in the way he wanted, and while I agree that Belle's constant handwaving of everything he's ever done is annoying, it seems like they're setting up Rumbelle for a big fall. And even there, it's not like Belle and Rumpel have had the uncomplicated blissed-out relationship of Outlaw Queen, you know? Plus Rumpel has always been far more self-aware than Regina. Fifth, they've done a better job of making Rumpel's big challenges internal. I said above that they keep resorting to outside stimulus after outside stimulus to move Regina around, but what tends to power Rumpel is himself--his cowardice and his fight with it, his wrestling with his darker side, etc. That's the right way to do character change.

 

Finally, Rumpel just gets less screentime than Regina, and that really helps too. imo, Rumpel and Regina are best in smaller doses...it's no coincidence that Regina/Lana's best season was S1, when Regina got the least screentime, or at least dominated the show least.

[Shanna Marie]

Plus Rumpel has always been far more self-aware than Regina. Fifth, they've done a better job of making Rumpel's big challenges internal. I said above that they keep resorting to outside stimulus after outside stimulus to move Regina around, but what tends to power Rumpel is himself--his cowardice and his fight with it, his wrestling with his darker side, etc. That's the right way to do character change.

The self awareness makes a big difference. He may not be apologizing to his victims, but he has acknowledged that he's done a lot of bad things and has really screwed up. I don't give him a pass because he does indulge in a lot of cruelty for the sake of cruelty, but he's never pretended to be good, never expected anyone else to see him as good. I don't know that he has changed all that much. We'll see what he's like in the coming season when we have more of a chance to see him in control of himself. So far, the worst he's done is kill Zelena (not such a terrible thing, to be honest) and lie about it (the bad part). We'll see if he does anything more than continue to lie and play innocent.

 

While the pie-in-the-sky dream for Regina is that she'd ever apologize to Snow and recognize the wrong she's done to her, I'd have been happy if she'd ever made any kind of amends to Henry before they were suddenly the most loving family who ever loved. He never wronged her. He was right about her. And yet he's the one apologizing for bringing Emma to town and ruining her lovely curse?

 

In other news, the ongoing Fight Watch: In "Snow Falls," Charming was throwing a lot of elbows in his fight with the Black Knights, but he started the fight by throwing a knife and apparently killing one, and he did use his blade against bodies instead of just other blades, though we saw no blood (which is a good compromise to me -- the suggestion that the fight was serious without the obvious gore). But that was also the episode where Snow was planning to use dark fairy dust against Regina and did use it to turn trolls into bugs, and Charming shot a knight with an arrow, so this must have been before they came up with that bizarre idea that heroes aren't allowed to ever kill anyone, even bad people and even in self defense or defense of others. Where did they get this idea that the good guys have to be wimps and doormats?

[KAOS Agent]

 

This must have been before they came up with that bizarre idea that heroes aren't allowed to ever kill anyone, even bad people and even in self defense or defense of others.

 

Considering this show's need to throw the heroes under the bus to put them in the wrong somehow and more on the villains' level, I'm surprised that they don't allow them to kill people. Then Regina could throw that in their faces whenever she's in her crazy world where self-awareness doesn't exist and she's just a queen, they're the ones who made her "evil". How many Black Knights are there out there with families and friends who miss them because Charming took it upon himself to defend his family and not to let them kill him or Snow or Baby Emma? The nerve of that man! 

[KingOfHearts]

It's curious that most of the characters in this show were either abandoned or given up as a child by their parents. Emma, Henry, Red, Zelena, Hook, James, Neal, Rumple... Ironically, Regina was one of the few people to have both her parents with her most of her life, and she's the most messed up! Weird how that works.

[Shanna Marie]

Considering this show's need to throw the heroes under the bus to put them in the wrong somehow and more on the villains' level, I'm surprised that they don't allow them to kill people. Then Regina could throw that in their faces whenever she's in her crazy world where self-awareness doesn't exist and she's just a queen, they're the ones who made her "evil".

That is kind of what they did with Snow and Cora, where Snow killing the woman who murdered her mother, who had just murdered her former nurse and who had killed who knows how many others and who was on the verge of making herself the next Dark One was somehow considered worse than all the evil Regina has ever done. That one action corrupted Snow's heart, and Snow has had to repeatedly beg forgiveness for it, in spite of Regina never having made the slightest apology for anything she's done to Snow, including scheming to arrange her father's death, trying to kill her repeatedly, and stealing her kingdom. Apparently, killing Cora was worse than any of that and Snow should have just let her go on about her evil business, killing who knows how many more people, because heroes don't kill people.

 

How many Black Knights are there out there with families and friends who miss them because Charming took it upon himself to defend his family and not to let them kill him or Snow or Baby Emma? The nerve of that man!

Maybe it only counts if the character who gets killed has a name, since David is one of the few characters not shown to have any kind of moral black spot for questionable actions in the name of heroism. I'll have to continue tracking the fight violence to see when/if that "good guys can't kill anyone, ever" thing changed.

 

Speaking of the Black Knights, did Regina send all of them to Snow's castle and did David kill all of them on the way to the wardrobe? Because otherwise, where are they in Storybrooke? Graham didn't have a host of really menacing deputies. There didn't seem to be a mayor's secret police force. Regina didn't have a huge all-male household staff. Or did the survivors actually get decent lives in Storybrooke, as the only people who were truly her loyal allies, so they're off in the background, just being happy suburban dads?

[Camera One]

Speaking of the Black Knights, did Regina send all of them to Snow's castle and did David kill all of them on the way to the wardrobe? Because otherwise, where are they in Storybrooke? Graham didn't have a host of really menacing deputies. There didn't seem to be a mayor's secret police force. Regina didn't have a huge all-male household staff. Or did the survivors actually get decent lives in Storybrooke, as the only people who were truly her loyal allies, so they're off in the background, just being happy suburban dads?

 

These were all problems that became obvious at the beginning of Season 2.  Likewise, Snow and Charming should have had a contingent of loyal knights.  But every menace in Storybrooke was faced by the vast army of Charming, Granny and the 7 Dwarves.  If there had been a coalition of villains, or even Regina and some loyal Black Knights, they could have done a lot with the politics within Storybrooke, and the two sides vying for power, the "good guys" establishing order while Emma learns to work with her dad and her mom to keep order and to win hearts and minds in the town.  Instead of bringing in psycho Cora.

[stealinghome]

But every menace in Storybrooke was faced by the vast army of Charming, Granny and the 7 Dwarves.

I cracked up at this. ;)

 

This is actually one place where I'm sympathetic to the show, because casting guest stars/glorified extras (even if it's no one you've heard of) costs money--they have to pay the people, they have to pay to haul them up to Steveston, they have to pay to costume them, etc etc etc. I can understand why the show doesn't want to have to show big crowds regularly. So my personal fanwank is that everyone got to Storybrooke and was like "f that, suburban life is so much better than being a black or white knight, I'm going to keep on keeping on with my normal life!"

[Shanna Marie]

But every menace in Storybrooke was faced by the vast army of Charming, Granny and the 7 Dwarves.

Never underestimate the power of knitting needles.

 

I've also wondered where Midas was, since his daughter was in Storybrooke.

 

I can see not including everyone in every episode, but it would be nice to get at least an indication of where some people are and what they're doing. Leroy could gripe that the knights are all hanging out in the Rabbit Hole. Or, instead of the three zillionth weepy Regina flashback, we could have had an episode about some of the minor characters and where they fit in, so they could then play a role in the present day adventure (before heading back to the sidelines). I'd be happy with just a sight gag of a group of men in Storybrooke who might be the knights -- like a group of guys in black sweatsuits, jogging by in formation.

[Camera One]

This is actually one place where I'm sympathetic to the show, because casting guest stars/glorified extras (even if it's no one you've heard of) costs money--they have to pay the people, they have to pay to haul them up to Steveston

 

My problem is more with how this leads to lacklustre universe building, not that they should have a bunch of random extras standing in the background (that's what Blue and Archie are for, bless their hearts).  As Shanna Marie said, some sort of explanation is necessary, whether it is having the knights be scouting out the town line, or Charming and Snow deciding to let them live their lives to make up for all that lost time with their families from the Curse, or many were stuck in Cora Dome, or whatever.  Clearly, the main reason is that a weak Charming contingent allows the "bad guys" to do whatever the hell they want for half a season.  After all, Granny can only point her crossbow in one direction.  

Edited June 19, 2014 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

You know, I think a lot of the problem with both the worldbuilding and with Regina's "redemption" arc is that they rushed events early in season 2. They didn't let themselves have time to play with the promise in the premise -- a concept from the screenwriting book Save the Cat. That's the part of the story after events have kicked off when you play with the elements inherent in the premise, since the premise is generally why someone chooses to watch one thing over another. An ongoing TV series is paced differently from a movie, but you still want to explore the premise, and in this case, the premise is "characters from fairy tales are living in a modern American small town." That didn't entirely apply in the first season because they didn't know they were fairy tale characters, and so the "promise in the premise" was us getting to find out who was who. But once the curse is broken, you kind of want to see all that stuff play out. What kind of life would Snow White and Prince Charming have in our world? How would they deal with the Evil Queen within the US justice system?

 

Sending Emma and Snow off on their Team Princess adventure right away was a bad move. They should have allowed themselves a few episodes, at least, to play with the idea of everyone waking up and getting oriented, finding each other, figuring out what kind of society they were going to have. And they should have really dealt with Regina then, with more than one halfhearted lynch mob. How is she even still mayor? She should have had to either grovel or do something else to save her own skin from an entire town full of people who'd been uprooted and forced into lives they didn't want or like for 28 years of a Groundhog Day existence. It's unfathomable that she's just allowed to go about her business, with or without magic. If they'd let the plot breathe a little and had played with the premise for a few episodes before Team Princess, then they could have started Regina on an arc of self-awareness, leading up to her finally facing the person who was really responsible for her unhappiness -- Cora -- in an "enemy of my enemy" situation.

 

It's funny, I read an interview with the guys adapting Game of Thrones, which is as plotty as all get-out, and they had a quote about how, in spite of all the action, some of their favorite scenes are two people in a room together. Now, granted, when just two people are in a room together, talking, if there's a female, she's naked (or there's a naked woman or people having sex in the background), and that series has a lot of issues, but it shows that in a 10-episode season in a series loaded with plot, storylines that still don't intersect, and about 300 characters, they can still take the time to have scenes of people just talking to each other so we understand them and their relationships. If they can do it, this show should be able to.

[Camera One]

I agree about the S2 points.  

 

The headwriters of "Game of Thrones" have it a lot easier though.  They already have the general plot outlined from the book to work with, and they basically have to think in the reverse - how to incorporate some quieter character moments in between the pre-determined actions.  I'm assuming some of these character scenes were in the book so they could just take from that and adapt it.  Meanwhile, Adam and Eddy have to start from scratch in terms of plot and universe-building.  They also do not have pre-determined character arcs and character journeys from the source material to rely on, nor a pre-set end-point.  They also can't rely on excessive gore, sex and twists for the sake of shock value.  Yes, Adam and Eddy have more freedom but a much, much bigger task.

[stealinghome]

Well, also, Adam and Eddie think two people in a room, just talking, is boring as shit (unless one of those people is Regina, I suppose). That doesn't help either.

 

You know, I think a lot of the problem with both the worldbuilding and with Regina's "redemption" arc is that they rushed events early in season 2.

Agreed. I've said it before, but I really think a lot (not all, but a lot) of the problems with S3 can be traced to S2. If they'd built a better foundation for some of the main S3 storylines in S2 (Regina's redemption, Rumpel's relationship with Nealfire and attempts to "be a better person," the entirety of Neal and his relationships with Henry and Emma, Emma's relationship with her parents), the S3 storylines would have gone much more smoothly. But a lot of what they did fell flat because S2 just didn't provide the necessary foundations. You can build the nicest mansion in the world, but if you build it on quicksand it's not going to matter.

 

2A should have been everyone in Storybrooke adjusting and figuring out how their lives were going to be in this new world. The first half of 2B could have been Team Princess, and the second half of 2B should have been Cora(+Hook). Honestly, that could have made for some really drama-filled end-of-season episodes. Can you imagine if 'Miller's Daughter' had been the second-to-last episode of the season and the finale featured Regina preparing to go head-to-head with the Charmings, only for Henry to be kidnapped, and both sides having to put aside their seething hate (well, on Regina's side at least) to get Henry back? That could've made for a great final 20 minutes of the finale. No stupid Greg, Tamara, Regina-tries-to-kill-the-entire-town, stupidly-saving-Regina-from-Greg-and-Tamara, and--best of all--no moronic diner speech required!

Edited June 19, 2014 by stealinghome

[KingOfHearts]

The most glaring problem that Season 2 was the incoherent story arcs. In S1, there were only a few major storylines, but they all fit together perfectly. (Top 3: Curse, Snowing, and Emma vs Regina)  But in S2, the arcs were all over the place. You had Storybrooke post-curse and Team Princess going at the same time for nine episodes. Then, after that, it was the Cora in Storybrooke. Then the Nealfire in Manhattan storyline came up while the Cora story was still going, and after Cora died, it was Greg/Tamara for the rest of the season. (Plus a couple of irrelevant stupid plots like Lacey and August)

 

S1 had a giant story arc covering the whole thing. S2 was the complete opposite - it remained totally random throughout its run. 
 

If Cora had lived through the whole season as a Big Bad, with Regina slowly beginning to realize her real enemy was her mother, then S2 would have kept viewers watching. Cora would have easily been the drive for the rest of the season. In my honest opinion, she was killed off too soon. In 3B, Zelena was Cora the Sequel, but I didn't find the sinisterness in her as I did with Cora, nor the scale of epicness.

 

S2 was a major opportunity for character growth. You had Emma reuniting with her parents, Regina without power, Rumple finally finding Bae, and Emma with her mom in the Enchanted Forest. It just writes itself. Thankfully 3A fixed the incoherency issues for the most part, aside from the lack of Storybrooke.

 

Well, also, Adam and Eddie think two people in a room, just talking, is boring as shit (unless one of those people is Regina, I suppose). That doesn't help either.

 

 

Bleeding Through with Regina and Snow, and Hook and Emma in the vault in There's No Place Like Home. Amazing moments... why don't they see that as interesting? More stuff happened there than a dozen action sequences.

Edited June 19, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[YaddaYadda]

Adam and Eddy need to get their heads out of somewhere.  Those two are like small children in a candy factory.  They dispatched both Cora (especially Cora) and Pan rather quickly, Zelena had potential and they manage to messed that up and now we're on to the next "villain".  So no, I'm tired of le villain du jour and I'd like to go half a season without one of those being stupid for the sake of being stupid. 

 

I think we've all posted something about how we want to see them develop the relationships on the show.  That would be so much gold if they actually decided to write that.  The only reason they keep bringing in these villains is because they're trying to reform the ones they already have.

[Shanna Marie]

The headwriters of "Game of Thrones" have it a lot easier though.

I think it's more a case of "different challenge" than "easier." They have those predetermined arcs, many of which don't work on TV, and they have to distill massive amounts of information into a tiny amount of time. But these guys do recognize that there are times when a scene in which two characters talk to each other can be just as important as a huge battle scene. Sometimes I think they actually go overboard and overindulge themselves with scenes of two characters talking to each other about nothing of importance. Meanwhile, the Once Upon a Time crew, given the chance to adapt something like that source material, would likely be all battle scenes, all the time, with none of that boring talking, with the result being that we don't know the characters or their relationships well enough to care about the outcome of the fight scenes.

 

You can build the nicest mansion in the world, but if you build it on quicksand it's not going to matter.

Or, like a house near here, if you build it on a limestone cliff over a lake on the part of the cliff that juts out and doesn't have anything under it, things fall apart very, very quickly and spectacularly. They didn't bother to build the foundation of what the post-curse world looked like, and that made everything else teeter over the brink. I think there's a similar issue with the Missing Year. We didn't have a strong enough view of what that was like to make all the actions everyone took and the relationships that developed make much sense.

[Camera One]

You can build the nicest mansion in the world, but if you build it on quicksand it's not going to matter.

 

Not to mention they continued to repeat some of the same mistakes in 3B.  That to me in some ways is even more disappointing.  They are disregarding legitimate criticism and plowing ahead with a lot of the same goals and agenda.

[stealinghome]

Not to mention they continued to repeat some of the same mistakes in 3B.  That to me in some ways is even more disappointing.  They are disregarding legitimate criticism and plowing ahead with a lot of the same goals and agenda.

I don't disagree, but I actually found S3 to be an improvement on S2 in this regard. I think we all agree that this show's best season was its first, but even S1 was far from perfect, and I distinctly remember saying to someone, in the summer break between the first and second seasons, that "Parts of the show are really good, and it does sometimes have problems, but if they fix the problems this could be a really great show." Then S2 proceeded to throw away everything that was great about S1 and, instead of fixing the problems, founded all of S2 on the very things that were weaknesses in S1 without fixing them. They founded the show on the weaknesses and the weaknesses themselves got even bigger. Even if the execution was often poor, S3 at least went some way toward fixing some of S2's problems (gave the show a coherent plot, refocused on the main characters and relationships).

[Camera One]

I agree that overall S3 was definitely better than S2 (nothing was lower than that mess in 2B).  Some mistakes were fixed but not all.  For me, though, the mistakes which were repeated were major:

1. Overly focusing on Regina, making everything about her and rushing her redemption for the sake of glorification of her character

2. Giving no rewarding storyline or character arc to Snow or Charming or the Snow/Charming/Emma relationship, except for one giant leap in finale episode

3. Creating an overpowered villain against completely ineffectual protagonists who only "win" by luck at the very last moment

Edited June 19, 2014 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

3A had a sharp contrast with S2, in that it had a strong arc that stuck through the entire half-season. It was slower paced, character focused, dialog intensive, and darker/less cartoony. In fact it got so slow, it was almost too much of a good thing. Unlike all other antagonists on the show, Pan wasn't in your face or scenery chewing the whole way. He was subtle and mysterious. Neverland was out of everyone's element, so it tilted the playing field - especially where magic was concerned. Even Rumple was daunted before ever even setting foot on the island. 3A also introduced a few new characters that I actually liked. (Pan, Tinkerbell, and Ariel) I thought all the main cast had an equal and fair amount of time in the spotlight. My only big beef with the arc was being away for Storybrooke so long. Storybrooke was only featured in 4 of the 11 episodes. The finale episode was one of my favorites of the entire series.

 

And here comes 3B. In no way, shape or form was it as bad as S2. Thankfully, the story consistency 3A had was continued on with the ongoing Zelena threat. This half of the season sat on a very grand scale, reaching all the way from New York to Oz to Enchanted Forest to Storybrooke. The Wicked Witch was so iconic, as was Oz. There's an elegance to Oz that brings the story to a new level. I sensed an essence of whimsy the show hadn't had since S1. The fatal flaw to 3B was the character development, or lack thereof. All characters on the show, including Regina and Zelena, were victims of bad character writing. Heck, even the new disposable secondary characters suffered. (Rapunzel, Lumiere) However, what I loved most about 3B was the premise. The setup Going Home gave us had my mind going for a long time. I only wish the execution was closer to what fans thought it would be.

 

Except for the character issues, I enjoyed most of S3 and found it much more memorable than most of S2.

Edited June 19, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Shanna Marie]

I may change my impression as I rewatch more of it, but my recollection of season one was that when it was good, it was amazing, but when it was bad, it was truly awful. They seemed mired in that pattern of flashbacks mirroring present events, and that worked when it was about the main ongoing plot about the Charmings and Regina. There, it was fun getting the backstory out of order and then piecing it together and having those "aha!" moments when I realized how one piece fit into the previous piece (like learning what happened just before the carriage ride with Abigail and "James" to explain why they were so prickly just before Snow's ambush). Then, the flashbacks were their own ongoing storyline, just like the present-day events. If you took them on their own and edited them together in the right order, they made their own story arc.

 

And then there were the filler episodes, where they were using backstory as a characterization tool for secondary characters. Did we really need to know how Jiminy became a cricket? Or that Grumpy used to be Dreamy and in love with a fairy we never saw again? Most of the things we learned in those episodes were never relevant again.

 

Season 3 did at least slow down and give us conversations among the characters. Emma got to talk to both of her parents, and we got a lot of insight about her in her conversations with Hook. We still may be lacking a Regina apology to Snow, but they have at least talked to each other. We got to see Henry and Hook talking about Henry's father. There were a decent number of "two people in a room" scenes, which seemed to be largely absent in season 2. I also don't recall too many irrelevant filler fairybacks. They all seemed to have something to do with the main ongoing arc, even if there were too many Regina-centric flashbacks and missed opportunities for others that would be relevant.

[Camera One]

And then there were the filler episodes, where they were using backstory as a characterization tool for secondary characters. Did we really need to know how Jiminy became a cricket? Or that Grumpy used to be Dreamy and in love with a fairy we never saw again?

 

Some of those were episodes I enjoyed the most.  Mary Margaret bonding with Leroy while we discover their friendship in the past, Archie standing up for himself in the present-day regaining some of his own personality, Emma's childhood issues surfacing when dealing with Hansel and Gretel.  "Irrelevant" to the larger story doesn't matter to me.  I've always been interested in development of both main characters and supporting characters, and the latter can sometimes add to the former.  These types of episodes helped to prevent overkill in flashbacks from the main characters. 

 

Season 3 did at least slow down and give us conversations among the characters. Emma got to talk to both of her parents.  also don't recall too many irrelevant filler fairybacks. They all seemed to have something to do with the main ongoing arc.

 

In Season 3, significant conversations between the characters were still seriously lacking.  To me, Emma's only real significant conversation with Snow happened in "Lost Girl", the second episode of the season.  There were about three between Emma and Charming that I loved, and that's in an entire season.  

 

Even though the flashbacks had to do with the ongoing arc, a lot of them were plot plot plot (especially 3B since we were finding out what happened in the lost year), heavy on Regina and/or Zelena and/or repetitive of what we've seen before (Pied Piper with Rumple and Bae; more Regina hunting Snow with Ariel).  So a lot of them were just not very emotionally satisfying to me.