A Thread for All Seasons: OUaT Across All Realms

[FurryFury]

Hey, it's not my fault that they've decided to replace Robin Hood with this... person.

[YaddaYadda]

Slap? I want to kill him, disintegrate him and destroy his soul and everyone's memories of him. 

Not a fan of Robin, I take it?  I'm just making sure that I'm getting this right.

[KingOfHearts]

So far, and this is sudden judgement, I find 2B to have much more character assassination and a much steeper turn downward than 4B. 2B ruined four characters - Snow, Regina, Henry and Baelfire. I believe Once had something very good going up to 2A, but it crashed and burned after. While 4A was okay in some chilly places, the Storybrooke section was just as bad as what we're getting now. For that reason I don't see 4B being such a downfall as 2B.

But again, it's still early. We're still in the setup stage. We all know how this show will do in the climax by precedent...

[FurryFury]

2B ruined four characters - Snow, Regina, Henry and Baelfire.

 

And 4B further ruined Snow and added David and Emma to it (well, Emma's ruination started in 4x05, but her worrying about Regina's safety and following her like a puppy further solidified it). Considering that I like Emma and David way more, this is a much bigger deal for me. Still, the worst thing is the author stuff, it's just so horribly bad it defies definition.

 

Not a fan of Robin, I take it?  I'm just making sure that I'm getting this right.

 

Sorry, it's been accumulating for a while now. I guess Regina's dream in the latest ep reminded me of how terrifyingly awful this character and his storyline are. No redeeming qualities whatsoever (if you don't consider Robin 1.0 the same character - I don't).

[YaddaYadda]

Honestly, Robin both versions made very little impression on me that I wasn't even sure if it wasn't the same guy.  I remember how they introduced him and there's two scenes out of that I recall, the one where he was tortured by Rumple and the one where he saved pregnant Marian's life, back when he loved her and still had some honor.

 

I don't know if the show equates honor and obligation together.

[FurryFury]

The first Robin was cuter and actually loved Marian (or so it seemed, at least). He didn't make much of an impression, but I certainly didn't hate him or anything. The current one is just a horribly written plot device in order to make Regina happy, because her son's unconditional love and her victims unearned forgiveness is not enough for her.

Edited March 27, 2015 by FurryFury

[Mathius]

When I really think about it, bringing magic at the end of S1 by itself wasn't even the problem...the problem was making the claim that "magic works differently here" and then NOT FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH IT. There should have been actual RULES to magic in Storybrooke, actual limitations. Instead, it's the same as in the EF, with magic-users (almost always the bad guys) just waving their hands and making things happen for themselves.

This wasn't so much a problem when Pan came to town, since he only ever used magic there in "Going Home" where he died, but it made things way too imbalanced in the fights with Cora, Regina, Zelena, Ingrid, Rumple and the QoD. The lack of rules really hurt in these cases. Compare Pan freezing everyone in "Going Home" to Rumple freezing Emma and Snow in "Heroes and Villains". With the former, it worked since it was finally a full demonstration of his great power that had been built up throughout the season: he could do anything with the power of belief. With the latter, it was just a cheat, as it's never been shown that Rumple could freeze more than one person WHILE performing a magic hat ritual and crushing someone's heart. He can just do it because the plot dictates he can, since Belle has to be the one to stop him in the big SHOCK moment.

I prefer to wait to decide which one is worse until the season is over, but at this point it's pretty close between the two.

Agreed.

I find it amusing that except for S1, which is so tight that it's difficult to seperate into A and B segments, the A segments of each season have always been better than the B ones to the majority of the audience. 2A, 3A, 4A...all met with varying levels of praise. 2B, 3B, 4B...all met with disappointment.

It's why I would take 2B over 3B and 4B (which pains me to say, you have no idea)--if you just jump from Miller's Daughter to 2x21, the half-season is fine. Whereas 3B and 4B are pretty much sucktastic from start to finish.

But we don't know how 4B will finish, and I disagree that 3B was sucktastic from start to finish, since it actually had a pretty strong start ("New York City Serenade" and "Witch Hunt") and a strong finish ("Snow Drifts" & "There's No Place Like Home"). It's just the middle that sucked. And even so, I still think 3B is better than 2B and 4B because it at least had a clear focus: defeat the Wicked Witch. 2B and 4B have been all over the place as to what the story's goal is. Edited March 27, 2015 by Mathius

[Crimson Belle]

Much like Ursula is apparently not THE Ursula, I'm convinced Robin Hood isn't THE Robin Hood.  He's just a pretender.

[Souris]

That would explain some things.

[YaddaYadda]

Much like Ursula is apparently not THE Ursula, I'm convinced Robin Hood isn't THE Robin Hood.  He's just a pretender.

That would be awesome.  We can just all move on from the insanity that is Pod!Robin.  

[Mari]

I find it amusing that except for S1, which is so tight that it's difficult to seperate into A and B segments, the A segments of each season have always been better than the B ones to the majority of the audience. 2A, 3A, 4A...all met with varying levels of praise. 2B, 3B, 4B...all met with disappointment.

I have an opinion on that--and I swear it's not just my rabid dislike of Regina causing my answer.

 

A good chunk of the problem is that the "B" tends to focus on Regina.  Since the writers have Regina perspective and reality problems, it sucks the whole half a season down. 

 

Season 2B?  Regina bounced between good and evil with no reasonable motive, while the other characters were not--for the most part--given realistic responses to her behavior.  When they were given realistic responses, they were framed as bad, selfish people.  That's not entertaining.  It's maddening.

 

Season 3B?  The villain was focused on Regina, and Regina's characterization was again all over the place, while we were being told by other characters that she was super-duper heroic and sacrificing--very little of which we saw on screen, until the out-of-nowhere special skill set that allowed her to resist being controlled without her heart, as well as allowed her to Truly Love without a heart (something no other character has managed) and suddenly do white magic and be better at it that people famous for white magic skill.  To make that happen, all the other characters had to again be buffoons or stupid.  On top of that, there was the completely unconvincing love story between Regina and Robin.  All of that hodge-podge together?  Not entertaining.  Unless you are a Reginastan citizen, merely maddening.

 

Season 4B?  Well, we'll see, but so far?  Regina is sad.  Regina deserves to be happy.  Why can't Regina just get some happiness?  Book?  Author?  Regina, Regina, Regina.  And in the meantime, the other characters are again having to turn into pod people to justify their actions.

 

In the B's, they put Regina in the front.  They love their Evil Queen Regina, so we usually get a great deal of that, but then they want us to sympathize with her and see her as a hero, so there are often scenes of Regina the "victim".  To make that happen, the other characters are either completely shoved in the background, or turned into weird versions of themselves, or villainized for completely normal reactions and behavior.

 

If they didn't have to twist the story and characters around to make Regina a villain, a hero, and a victim all in 11 episodes, it would be easier to enjoy, and to write.

[Shanna Marie]

When I really think about it, bringing magic at the end of S1 by itself wasn't even the problem...the problem was making the claim that "magic works differently here" and then NOT FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH IT. There should have been actual RULES to magic in Storybrooke, actual limitations. Instead, it's the same as in the EF, with magic-users (almost always the bad guys) just waving their hands and making things happen for themselves.

Yes, this exactly, except I think the real problem is with the way they write magic everywhere. There are no consistent rules or limits to any magic, so the magic users can do anything, until they can't. They can make anything happen with a wave of the hand, unless they need to do a specific spell that requires ingredients, an incantation, and a particular time and place. No one runs out of power. No one gets into a situation where they don't have a particular spell that applies and they have to improvise by combining spells and hoping it works. That's where the real fantasy authors are pointing and laughing because when you don't set up your magical system and give it rules, you've actually made your job a lot harder. It's more difficult to find a way to defeat the villains without pulling something out of thin air if the villains can do anything, and it's difficult to find villains who can challenge the heroes if the heroes can do anything. This is why the standard story arc involves the villain being all super-powerful, so the heroes are helpless against her/him until the very last second when the heroes suddenly come up with something that saves the day.

 

Back to my attempts to parse the Idiot Plot ... Upon rewatching, yeah, there were an alarming number of mentions of the book and Author in Hook's speech to Emma at the end, but was that because he's drunk the Kool-Aid or because he was talking to Emma, who's spent the past six weeks totally on board with the idea that they have to find the Author and rewrite the book in order to make former villains happy? Even if he doesn't believe in it, it would be distressing for him to know that she believes in it because it implies that she believes he can't have a happy ending. Though it doesn't seem to have occurred to her that he would fall into the same category as Regina. Does this mean she doesn't think he was ever as bad as Regina (and, let's face it, she's done harm on a scale that pretty much would require a complete rewriting of karma to be allowed all the things she thinks she deserves)? Or has she been so focused on Regina's happiness that she didn't even stop to think about her boyfriend?

 

I think Colin sold the hell out of that speech merely by playing it with so much guilt and remorse all over his face, so it came across as Hook worrying about his ability to achieve a happy ending because he hadn't changed as much as he'd hoped -- he'd still gone about things like a villain, and that was what doomed his attempt to failure -- and it seemed like he was worried about what his not meriting a happy ending would mean to Emma -- what would happen to her in order to make him lose his happiness? -- but I wonder if that's his own internal rationalization of a speech that makes no sense whatsoever on paper.

 

The whole plot just kind of implodes if you look at that scene and the scene at the end with Hook and Ursula. Hook believes Emma is his happy ending, but he worries about whether he'll be able to keep it because he was a villain and still frequently acts like a villain even when he's trying to do the right thing. The way he played it, he seemed to be taking responsibility for that, that his failure to stop being a villain was his own fault, not because he was written that way (considering he's only in the book as Prince Charles, who isn't a villain -- maybe that's why Emma didn't seem to have considered that the villain rules might apply to him?), but if you look at the actual words, it could have been taken to mean that the book is the reason he can't stop acting like a villain even though he doesn't want to be a villain anymore. Except he just managed not to act like a villain once Ariel slapped some sense into him and he came up with the idea of reconciling Ursula with her father and restoring her voice because it was the right thing to do and he owed it to her. The Author's locked away and the book is unchanged, and yet former villain Hook was able to get a happy ending for villains Ursula and Poseidon, and he did it while Ursula was still being somewhat villainous (given that she'd just tried to kill him and had come back to torture August). But then we get the revelation that the only way to rewrite things is to fill Emma's heart with darkness. We've got a paradox there if the only way for former villain Hook to get his happy ending is for him to lose his happy ending by losing the Emma he loves. I don't think he'd stop loving her, but I'm not sure he'd be happy with the fact that Emma was turned dark.

[YaddaYadda]

The episode was a bit contradictory, but I guess that's the nature of Once (which thanks for the migraine btw).  I'm not sure that Hook even considered Ursula to be a villain.  He spoke of her as such because she aligned herself with villains, but I don't  believe he viewed her as bad person.  She was his and her father's victim in their pissing contest.  So he effectively returned the happy ending of someone who did not deserve to have it taken from her in the first place.  We obviously don't know what Ursula has done in the meantime but, in his book he created her or helped create her.

 

I can see where his self-doubt comes from because the first obstacle he encountered which was Ursula's voice not returning to her and her reaction to it, which was not holding her end of their deal, he resorted to his old tactics.  He held a gun at her and threatened her life if she didn't tell him what she knew, so he effectively returned to who he was.  We don't know what he would have done if she hadn't knocked him out.  Would he have tied her to a chair and forced her to speak by torturing her?  Would he have shot her?  Killed her?

 

Hook is someone who is filled with self-doubt and self-loathing over the things he has done and he is looking at Regina who has changed (like it or not, she has changed), she already lost what she considered her happy ending, so him thinking it's only a matter of time before he loses Emma isn't so far fetched for someone who is in his mindset.  Let's just call it his karma.  He finds happiness at last, but karma comes back to bite him in the ass.

 

But this whole book plot is hella confusing.  I don't really understand it and I absolutely do not get the message behind it.  Someone like Hook, unless another book pops with his name on it, his story isn't in Henry's book.  He appears in Snowing's story with Emma under a false name at that.  How does the whole thing affect someone whose story isn't in that book?

[Mari]

Presumably, there are books on all these people somewhere. They just had access to this particular one because it's the one needed to help break the curse. Somewhere out there is a book with all of Hook's dastardly deeds. (Or, at least, that's what I took away from the mansion book scene.)

[KingOfHearts]

The biggest issue is not following through with setup, I agree. However, I think bringing magic to Storybrooke makes it too identical to Enchanted Forest, thus taking away the dichotomy of the present day and flashbacks. Changing the rules of magic to make it more limited in SB could have worked, but that would call for actual worldbuilding. The writers don't want to create a system because they don't want to live by anything or deal with consequences. They want to keep the ability of pulling solutions or hazards out of thin air whenever they feel like it.

 

One idea 1B did that was intriguing was the magic drought. Regina could do magic things, but in short supply. She had to get creative to accomplish her goals. If characters were forced to use objects instead of jazz hands to wield magic, then the situations would be smarter and the playing field wouldn't be so tilted. Having "hints" of magic behind the scenes kept Storybrooke whimsical and mysterious. When you conjure it out of nothing, there's nothing to gauge it with. Therefore, deus ex machinas everywhere.

[coops]

I agree the major problem with the show is their lack of a magical system which makes sense. I roll my eyes at things like the 'magical tree' that was introduced a few episodes back because its always a really cheap way to take the plot from A to B. I mean what was the point of the tree other than to reveal Snow was with child... something that could have easily been revealed without magic. Sometimes they get it right though. The magical candle which Snow used to kill Cora worked for me because it made Snow as a character make a choice which had consequences. The candle was set up really well and had a rules set in how to use it and how it worked that made sense. The tree rejected Snow because she was pregnant made no sense at all.

[Zuleikha]

If characters were forced to use objects instead of jazz hands to wield magic, then the situations would be smarter and the playing field wouldn't be so tilted.

I like the jazz hands magic, but it should be more limited in Storybrooke. The writers have (possibly accidentally!) done a thing where each of the main human magic users have an elemental affinity: Emma to electricity, Regina to fire, and Elsa/Ingrid to ice. They probably could have struck a nice balance with magic if they'd limited humans to being able to use jazz hand for their elemental magic and needing objects of power or potions for everything else (maybe with an exception of special Savior-related supermagic for Emma and heart-related supermagic for Regina). 

 

Blue and Rumple should be more powerful than the humans as both are embodiments of the essence of light or dark magic, but both should have some kind of reasonable weakness that constrains their magic. Blue's weakness is that the writers don't care about her character at all so she's never remembered about or used, but her weakness could be limited supplies of fairy dust in Storybrooke since that was actually established.

 

Rumple's weakness should be that, in addition to the control of the dagger, he literally can't resist making a deal. That was established in the Cinderella episode in s1 but then weakened to the point where it's more like he just likes doing it for fun. We've seen him refuse a deal in at least one episode with Milah.

 

I do like having magic in Storybrooke, though, because that provides a justification for keeping Storybrooke separate from the rest of the Land Without Magic. I just wish there were better rules. I also wish that 3B had taken advantage of its setup to have the Enchanted Forest residents explicitly talk about whether they wanted to find a way back again or stay in Storybrooke. S2 was all about going home, and then there was the Save Henry diversion in Neverland, but that ended with the return to the Enchanted Forest. Then they were there for a year, and in 3B, no one ever talked about how they felt having that choice unmade. Now, no one seems interested in returning home to the Enchanted Forest.

[Camera One]

I actually don't think it was the introduction of magic that was a huge problem.  I think it was the problem that shows up over and over again:  failure to follow through on set-up.

 

They made a pretty big deal about "Different realm.  If magic works, it will work differently."  If they had actually followed through with that idea, the introduction of magic to Storybrook wouldn't have been quite the problem it's turned out to be.

 

Regina and Rumple would have been powered down quite a bit, since they wouldn't have necessarily known how to get their spells to work, or what the outcome would be if they cast  a spell.

 

New villains would be thrown by the "weird" magic in Storybrooke, making their villainy a learning curve and forcing more creativity.

 

I agree, "magic works differently here" would have been another way to deal with it.  That would make magical users like Regina and Rumple think twice, and I like the idea of a learning curve for the new villains.  The problem with "magic works differently here" is it still allows the inconsistent application of magical rules, which these writers are renowed for.  No magic would be more clear-cut and would force villains to find a real-world work-around solution which would be more fitting for the real-world setting of Storybrooke.

 

I like the jazz hands magic, but it should be more limited in Storybrooke. The writers have (possibly accidentally!) done a thing where each of the main human magic users have an elemental affinity: Emma to electricity, Regina to fire, and Elsa/Ingrid to ice. They probably could have struck a nice balance with magic if they'd limited humans to being able to use jazz hand for their elemental magic and needing objects of power or potions for everything else (maybe with an exception of special Savior-related supermagic for Emma and heart-related supermagic for Regina). 

 

Blue and Rumple should be more powerful than the humans as both are embodiments of the essence of light or dark magic, but both should have some kind of reasonable weakness that constrains their magic. Blue's weakness is that the writers don't care about her character at all so she's never remembered about or used, but her weakness could be limited supplies of fairy dust in Storybrooke since that was actually established.

 

 

I like the idea of the limited magic for each person.  The problem is they have really only limited the magic of two people - Emma, whose magic is unpredictable, and Blue, whose magic is pretty much useless.  Rumple and to a lesser extent Regina (not to mention Zelena and Cora) had full powers and could do practically anything magical they wanted.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Camera One

[stealinghome]

I have an opinion on that--and I swear it's not just my rabid dislike of Regina causing my answer.

 

A good chunk of the problem is that the "B" tends to focus on Regina.  Since the writers have Regina perspective and reality problems, it sucks the whole half a season down.

I actually think this is right on. It was Cindy at TWOP, I believe, who observed that the show works best when it remembers that, at its core, it's Princess Emma's fairytale. And it's notable to me that Emma was at the forefront of 3A and 4A, and was co-at the forefront of 2A (2A might have been the most balanced the show has ever been as an ensemble), while the Bs tend to backburner her--2B most egregiously, 3B less so but she still ended up being pretty incidental to the plot, and the jury is still out on 4B but it's not good so far. It's like over the summer ABC slaps the back of A&E's heads and they're like "Crap, that's right! Emma's our lead!" and they write it as such in A, but then the Regina permaboner takes over and they can't help but backslide in the B half of the season.

 

I also wonder how much of it is fatigue-related. We all know that the Once writers are, shall we say, a) not the greatest and b) super UN-detail oriented. So I wonder how much of the raggedness of the B halves is simply due to having less lead/prep time for the "season" coupled with fatigue. (Which isn't to excuse the badness--they get paid to do this shit--but simply speculating on reasons why.)

Edited March 28, 2015 by stealinghome

[Mathius]

(2A might have been the most balanced the show has ever been as an ensemble)

Definitely. All 8 regulars at the time had consistent screentime and roles to play in 2A.

I also wonder how much of it is fatigue-related. We all know that the Once writers are, shall we say, a) not the greatest and b) super UN-detail oriented. So I wonder how much of the raggedness of the B halves is simply due to having less lead/prep time for the "season" coupled with fatigue. (Which isn't to excuse the badness--they get paid to do this shit--but simply speculating on reasons why.)

Agreed. With Season 1, they seemed to have the basics of episodes 1-8 and 18-22 plotted out from the start (though 18-22 could have come earlier but were wisely moved to the very end). Episodes 9-17 were mainly about filling time, but the show was still fresh and the writing still solid back then, so it mostly worked, at least to me.

What happened afterwards is that in the weeks between wrapping one season and beginning shooting another, the writers have enough time to develop a solid fix on what the A half of the season is going to be like, which is why it's better. The B half only gets developed once production on the season has already started, which brings all the fatigue and scheduling issues along with it. It's no excuse, but it is an explanation.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Mathius

[KingOfHearts]

 

I actually think this is right on. It was Cindy at TWOP, I believe, who observed that the show works best when it remembers that, at its core, it's Princess Emma's fairytale.

Emma is the glue that keeps the show together. She is the bridge between the audience and the show, between fantasy and reality. She is the character viewers can relate the most with. Many times she's what keeps the glitter from going off the rails. In a world of hope, evil and just plain craziness, she's the voice of reason. For her to be taken to the background just removes the connection between us and Storybrooke. Without her it's more like generic fantasy.

 

I think what works well is when the cast is treated as an ensemble, in that none of the characters get too much screen time. You get a little Hook, a little Snow, a little Regina, etc. in their respective centrics. In this way you minimized the window for character assassination because they're not over-used. Emma should be the common denominator to hold them all together. For example, in S1 Emma was helping each fairy tale character get their happy ending back. Her friendship with Mary Margaret, her investigation of David's wife and her rivalry with Regina kept her in relevant in all major areas.

 

I'm not saying Emma should get more screen-time than everyone else. What I am saying is that she should at least be consistent and not dragged too far back from the main plot, otherwise the audience will lose their grasp on what's happening. In my opinion, I think she needs a new storyline besides being "the Savior". I wish they'd look into her relationship with Henry... which was what this show originally focused on.

Edited March 28, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[Zuleikha]

I think the B halves have worse ratings because there's a steady decline over the year. I don't track closely, but from what I saw, 4A dropped a lot between the start and finish. So of course the B is going to do worse because it's starting from a smaller amount. That was true for season 3 as well. Actually, if Wikipedia is accurate and I understand how to read the chart correctly, 3A dropped more viewers from start to finish than 3B did and the 3B finale had more viewers than the 3A finale. I'm going to discount 2A/2B because 2B was just bad, and I don't think anyone disputes that. It had nothing to do with Regina; it wasn't even focused on her! It was just poorly structured for all the reasons that have already been discussed.

 

So I don't think the ratings hold that a Regina focus does worse than an Emma focus. I also personally disagree with the premise that the show works best when it thinks of itself as Princess Emma's fairytale. I think it works best when it treats itself as an ensemble with a story that affects Regina, Emma, Rumple, and Snow equally (I know Charming's a main character and I actually have grown to like him, but I think in terms of the emotional dynamics, he's a secondary character compared to Snow). I think part of its post-2A struggles have actually been figuring out how to incorporate Snow now that the Mary Margaret/Emma friendship doesn't work. 

[stealinghome]

Emma should be the common denominator to hold them all together. For example, in S1 Emma was helping each fairy tale character get their happy ending back. Her friendship with Mary Margaret, her investigation of David's wife and her rivalry with Regina kept her in relevant in all major areas.

More than being the common denominator, I find that the show works best when Emma is being a (pro)active character. The B halves have tended to make her very reactive--a character that things happen to, not a character that makes things happen. In contrast, the A halves let her drive the boat more. It helps a lot.

 

I think the B halves have worse ratings because there's a steady decline over the year.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I wasn't talking about ratings here. I was talking about storyline/show quality, and the general fandom consensus that the A halves are better than the B halves (obviously some people will disagree, but I would say that's the general fandom consensus).

[Camera One]

More than being the common denominator, I find that the show works best when Emma is being a (pro)active character. The B halves have tended to make her very reactive--a character that things happen to, not a character that makes things happen. In contrast, the A halves let her drive the boat more. It helps a lot.

 

Agreed.  It's strange how they've repeated this pattern for the third season in a row now.  I would prefer if she's even more active in the A arcs.  In general, the heroes are generally quite reactive overall.  Even in 4A, unfortunately, reacting to the misplaced "threat" of Elsa, then to the Snow Queen, including being fed files about Emma's childhood, having her powers triggered out of control by the Snow Queen, reacting to the Shattered Sight Curse with no plan of attack except "We trust you".  And as you said, it's many times worse in the B arcs.  Zelena pretty much ran the whole show in 3B.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Camera One

[KAOS Agent]

I just want to address the idea that this show isn't Emma's story. This show was sold as Emma's fairy tale. This is her journey. This is direct from the showrunners after the premiere in Season 1:

 

"There's a curse that needs to be broken, and these characters have had their happy endings ripped from them. Emma comes in there trying to help them find their happy endings. Ultimately, the last happy ending is for Emma."

Before that can happen, Emma, who also just happens to be the daughter of Prince Charming and Snow White, must truly become the hero of the story — a quest the writers find exciting because she was never part of the fairytale canon. "Emma is essentially a new fairytale character," Kitsis notes. "Emma's journey is just beginning and it hasn't been written yet."

 

The show today has most definitely strayed from this premise and it's weaker for it. It's not that I think Emma needs to be prominent and dominate the screen time so much as that using her as a catalyst for change helped them to focus the stories they were trying to tell for the other characters. Without that focus, the stories get really confusing and pointless. Emma was the glue that held the stories together. Now it's often just a bunch of randomness. 

Edited March 28, 2015 by KAOS Agent

[Joenigma]

 

I think she needs a new storyline besides being "the Savior"

Emma being "the Savior" isn't necessarily the problem. It's just that outside of season 1, there hasn't been a need for "a Savior." I mean outside the Villain of the plot, who is it that needs savings? And because of the Reginafest A&E have it's left me asking "Why is Emma even needed?"

 

I mean think about it, 3B was the prime example. Emma was brought back for a great life in New York to save her family and friends in Storybook and in the end, who saves the day? Regina. So Emma wasn't needed at all.

 

Another thing this show is now at the risk of losing is a pure Villain. They don't want to write a true-blue Villain anymore. And every-time you think we are getting one, here comes their sob-story background episode that apparently justifies why they are evil.

[YaddaYadda]

Well maybe they should just stop calling her the Savior then.  She was the Savior for one purpose and that was to break the curse, bring back the happy endings that were taken by Regina and she fulfilled that.  Breaking the curse meant giving everyone back their memories and reuniting people who have been separated by the curse, like her parents.  Everything else is complete rubbish.  No one knew Emma would have magic, though now I'm wondering if they won't retcon that (I really hope they don't).  Emma played her savior role already and I just don't understand why the show relies so heavily on that.

 

Emma broke the curse which is exactly what she was supposed to do.

Snow saved the day with Cora.

Rumple saved the day with Pan.

Regina saved the day with Zelena (aside from the whole light magic BS, the show did not mispromote this, it was always Evil vs Wicked).

Anna saved the day with Ingrid, not Emma (or Elsa for that matter which made the whole thing ugh!)

Belle saved the day with Rumple.

Hook saved the day with Ursula.

 

So now, we still have Cruella and Maleficent running around with Rumple.  Who will be saving the day with those three?  

 

Rumple wrote the Savior clause in the curse, so did he also write the other side of that coin where he would be able to turn the tables by darkening Emma's heart if need be?  (I know, I typed that with a straight face).  He has already taken advantage of who she is, the product of true love for his curse and Maleficent saw that Emma could go either way, so what if the real reason for that is Rumple being his douchenozzle self and covering his basis.  Rumple can see in the future.

 

I hope that after season 4 is done that the show will completely drop the whole Savior thing and that she has to bring back people's happy endings because no one should be responsible for those except for the people concerned (hey Grumpy loves Nova and Nova loves Grumpy but they can't be together, because reasons).  Unless there's something huge coming down the pike regarding Emma's Savior status, it just needs to go away.    

[Joenigma]

 

Unless there's something huge coming down the pike regarding Emma's Savior status, it just needs to go away.

I agree with your post 100% but i'm left thinking: Then what's the point with having Emma on the show? I'm not saying all Emma is is being the Savior. But she's meant to be THE HERO of the show. If she can't then... what's the point with the character?

[Mari]

 But she's meant to be THE HERO of the show. If she can't then... what's the point with the character?

Ideally, her purpose is the gateway character for viewers.  Part of her function originally was to be the character that looks at all this crazy and has the reaction that your average person from our world would have.

 

Unfortunately, they've sacrificed parts of her character on the altars of plot and Regina.  I think because they overestimate Regina's awesome and underestimate the importance of character consistency.

[YaddaYadda]

I agree with your post 100% but i'm left thinking: Then what's the point with having Emma on the show? I'm not saying all Emma is is being the Savior. But she's meant to be THE HERO of the show. If she can't then... what's the point with the character?

 

I don't think she's meant to be THE hero, I think she is meant to be A hero, one of many heroes who take turns at being heroes.  Everyone brings a different skill set to the table and yes, Emma is relied on a lot more because she has magic.  As far as the whole Savior thing goes, she has already more than fulfilled her end of the bargain.

 

I still think there's going to be an eventual showdown between her and Rumple.  Like I said in another thread (can't remember which one), the town is not big enough for the two of them and there is no way in hell those two (and I'm going to add Hook to the mix) will ever be able to co-exist.  Rumple has messed with Emma too many times for something not to come out of it eventually.  Maybe that's the reason they keep calling her the Savior?  I don't know, this show sometimes (all the time) is a real head scratcher because no consistency.

[KingOfHearts]

More than being the common denominator, I find that the show works best when Emma is being a (pro)active character. The B halves have tended to make her very reactive--a character that things happen to, not a character that makes things happen. In contrast, the A halves let her drive the boat more. It helps a lot.

I agree with Camera One that being reactive is an issue with all characters, not just Emma. I do want Emma to be involved, connected and to have a say in all major plots, but I want the other characters to be pro-active as well. In an ensemble cast show it's dangerous to have a singular character run everything after not for so long.

[Mathius]

Another thing this show is now at the risk of losing is a pure Villain. They don't want to write a true-blue Villain anymore. And every-time you think we are getting one, here comes their sob-story background episode that apparently justifies why they are evil.

So, a true-blue villain is one that has no backstory of becoming evil and no motivation to be evil except that they are? That can work sometimes (Pan, to a degree...he technically had a sad background and motive, but it was very underplayed in favor of his evilness), but overuse it and it's boring. Most villains SHOULD have sob-story backgrounds, it makes them complex characters rather than cardboard cutouts for the heroes to vanquish. The trick is on justifying why they're evil, because ideally the sob-story should NOT do that. It should be an explanation, not an excuse.

Adam, Eddy and their staff CAN do this, in fact they did it very well on two villains on opposite wavelengths: Ingrid on the main show who point-blank said before her redemptive death that her sob-story of facing prejudice did not justify her becoming a monster and that it was her own bad choices that made her so, and Jafar on the spinoff who had one hell of a sob-story but was never presented as anything but 100% purely iredeemably EVIL in the present. It's with villains like Rumple, the Mills women, and the Queens of Darkness that they've screwed up.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Mathius

[HoodlumSheep]

I am derailing the wonderful conversation you all are having for a second:

It turns out that my older brother's friend's wife watches ouat (she loves Disney) which got me excited. We didn't get to discuss the show for very long, but I was interested in what she had to say. She seemed to like the sorceror's hat stuff, was surprised that Hook helped with sucking Mickey into the hat, and she also thought that the author plot was "meh" because she agreed with the fact that the author didn't make Regina and Rumple massacre villages, etc. That's all on them.

She was also surprised by the Mal-being-pregnant twist.

We also started joking about bringing in The Lion King (so I'm guessing there are a number of people who've had that thought cross their mind--if Archie can go back and forth between being a cricket and human, why can't lions?).

She also said she liked the Frozen arc and agreed that the winter finale was kinda weak.

She also didn't like Nealfire!

She's also a couple of episodes behind like I am.

Lastly, she agrees that the show is do darn cheesy but she loves it anyways.

She's the first seemingly-casual viewer who watches Once that I've known in person (like, I'm pretty sure she doesn't discuss it online or anything).

Okay, I'm done now.

Edited March 28, 2015 by HoodlumSheep

[Shanna Marie]

Then what's the point with having Emma on the show? I'm not saying all Emma is is being the Savior. But she's meant to be THE HERO of the show. If she can't then... what's the point with the character?

I think there's a big difference between being The Savior and being a hero. Her Savior job was breaking the curse, and that's done. Being the Savior did leave her with other traits that may be useful in other heroics, and it's her personality to want to help, but it really shouldn't be her job to hand out happy endings after breaking the curse. She can help because she's a nice person, but ultimately all the Savior was supposed to do was break the curse so people got their free will back and had the ability to pursue their happy endings without the curse and Regina's interventions keeping them from it. Regina never lost free will due to the curse and was in control the whole time, so Emma's Savior role has absolutely nothing to do with Regina's happiness. That's all on Regina.

 

But being the Savior seems to have given Emma innate magical powers that work even in the World Without Magic. She seems to be somewhat immune to the effects of the Dark Curse, so she was able to enter Storybrooke and leave without losing her memories (it would be interesting to see if she could leave now and get back without the scroll). Her heart can't be ripped out. And she seems to be considered an equal resident of both worlds -- she was born in the Enchanted Forest, but being sent to this world as Savior means she also can function like a citizen of this world. I got the impression that she could have gone with the others in the curse reversal but had the option of staying so Henry wouldn't be alone, since Henry wouldn't have been considered an Enchanted Forest native (in spite of his DNA). Everyone else born in the Enchanted Forest had no choice about going back, even if they didn't come here via the curse.

 

I think Emma functions best the way she was early in 3A, when she was the team builder. She can bring together all these disparate people who otherwise would never deal with each other and make them into a team that can get something accomplished. She's the common thread -- she connects to Regina via Henry, she's connected to her parents, she brings Hook into the group, and she's even linked to Rumple via Henry. She's the pragmatist with common sense who also has magical powers, and she can sidestep some of the Storybrooke magical rules because she also belongs to our world, while she's different from everyone else in our world because she's a fairy tale princess with magical powers. Where her story is the most fun is when they play with that duality, giving her a story that seems like something that would happen to a fairy tale princess (like being sent to another world through a portal, traveling to Neverland on a rescue mission, having a pirate captain fall in love with her), but have it play out as happening to a cynical 21st century American who didn't believe in fairy tales until she saw herself in a storybook.

 

It's that juxtaposition of real world with fairy tale world where this show tends to really shine, and unfortunately they keep forgetting to play with that.

[KingOfHearts]

 

But being the Savior seems to have given Emma innate magical powers that work even in the World Without Magic.

I actually put "Savior" in a different category than this. She's able to be Savior because she's a True Love baby. That's not going to change whether the curse was broken or not. She was born with innate magic powers and for this reason she's able to do things in other worlds (because True Love "transcends realms") that others can't. Since there are several other True Love couples on this show, some with children, I speculate that whatever Snow and Charming did to Maleficent caused Emma to be extra "good", but they didn't know she would get powers too. This would explain why Snowflake supposedly doesn't have any magic.

[Camera One]

Yeah, I think Emma functioned best when her real-world experience and pragmatism allows her to come up with ideas that the others could not.  It is just arbitrary when characters have "ideas" on this show.  It was bad enough when they had Regina randomly coming up with that Author mumbo-jumbo during her fury in the 4A premiere, they now also have Emma coming up with random contrived crap like, "If her amplified love put these ribbons on our wrists, then maybe what we need is someone's equally amplified hatred to get them off."

 

On the whole though, I think Emma and Hook have lucked out in writing so far in that they both have gotten satisfactory treatment as a hero (for Emma) and a reformed villain (for Hook), respectively (relatively compared to the other characters, comparing Hook's redemption with Regina's redemption, for example).  Meanwhile, Snow and to a lesser extent Charming are written in a way in which everything they do to approach a situation is wrong, useless and in both 4A and even worse in 4B, hurtful to Emma.  So far in 4B so far, both the Regina centric and the Hook centric have those characters triumphing and doing something heroic (Regina agreeing to go undercover for the "good guys" and Hook successfully turning Ursula back).  Meanwhile, the Snow/Charming centric was all about them pathetically trying to hide some wrong that they committed in the past, scurrying with their tails between their legs and ultimately unwittingly providing Rumple with the means to resurrect Maleficent.  That was not a hero's story.  That was a loser story.  So at least A&E seems to like Emma enough not to have subjected her to that treatment...yet.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Camera One

[stealinghome]

Then what's the point with having Emma on the show? I'm not saying all Emma is is being the Savior. But she's meant to be THE HERO of the show. If she can't then... what's the point with the character?

imo, Emma's emotional journey and growth is what should always be grounding the show and driving its emotional heart. As KAOS Agent posted above, at least in S1, A&E were very clear that the show was Emma's journey. But the thing is, breaking the curse should have been the start of Emma's journey, not its end. The overarching story for S2 through whenever the end is should have been Emma coming to grips with who she is (actually a fairytale princess), her messed up family situation, and learning how to be comfortable in her Savior/princess/fairytale/etc skin and becoming a true family with her parents and working through her emotional damage and whatnot to be an emotionally healthy adult. So the series finale should be a happy, no longer haunted Princess Emma getting married or being crowned crown princess or whatever. The show has touched on this in fits and starts, but never in any sustained or frankly coherent/satisfying way (and it's no coincidence that the times where the show has touched on it are some of the show's best).

 

Which is part of the reason why the A halves of the seasons tend to work better, imo. 2A was anchored by Emma going to the Enchanted Forest and being confronted with the hard reality of the fairytale stuff in a way that HAD to make her recognize her parents and herself as part of it; 3A let Emma grow into a leader and (theoretically) embrace her lost girl side and process it and use it; 4A was a lot about Emma's magic and orphan issues. (Not that the execution of any of these was always great, but Emma's character was driving the boat.) In contrast, 2B reduced Emma to glorified scenery; 3B had her trotting aimlessly around the woods for 99% of the time and, while they paid lip service to the idea of her learning magic, really really REALLY underplayed that; and in 4B, as far as I can tell, her main job has been to suck face with Hook, which if you like Captain Swan is a great, but if you don't is pretty damn boring.

[Rumsy4]

I agree that shifting the focus so drastically from Emma has affected the story negatively. It is an ensemble show, but it has lost its bearings. It's way too villain-centric, in particular--Regina-centric. Regina's happiness, feelings, reactions--are given too much time compared with any other storyline or character. Emma has almost become redundant in many cases. Her importance as Light-Magic wielder, Henry's mother, Snow and Charming's child, Sheriff--have all be taken over or shared with other people. None of the big climactic moments have gone to her since the end of S1. And her character is being destroyed by the constant Regina-padding. This Show should not be about getting Regina her Happy Ending. But that's what it has devolved to. It's a bait and switch A&E pulled on the viewers, and that has done neither the writing nor the Show, any favors.

Edited March 29, 2015 by Rumsy4

[RadioGirl27]

I agree that shifting the focus so drastically from Emma has affected the story negatively. It is an ensemble show, but it has lost its bearings. It's way too villain-centric, in particular--Regina-centric.

Yeah. And the problem is that it's not even a ensemble show anymore. Only Regina and the villains get screentime and development while the rest of the cast is sidelined and underused. Look at Belle and Will, for example.  Or Charming. I think that I like 3A so much because it had almost all the main cast working together towards a common goal.

[Shanna Marie]

And the problem is that it's not even a ensemble show anymore. Only Regina and the villains get screentime and development while the rest of the cast is sidelined and underused.

I think the cast and the way the cast is used is a big part of why the show works or doesn't work. I was thinking about this last night (counting cast members is more entertaining than counting sheep).

 

In season one, we had the core group of Regina, Rumple, Snow, Charming, Emma, and Henry, with Graham early in the season and August late in the season. But then we had a large secondary cast that seemed to be around most of the season -- maybe not in every episode, but quite often, even if just to pass them on the street or be in the diner, and many of these people even got centric episodes or big roles in flashbacks. That included Granny, Ruby, Marco, Archie, Grumpy, Sydney, Whale, and Kathryn. Because Regina and Rumple were the primary villains, most of the guest characters were good guys. I suppose Sydney and Kathryn, and maybe George, would count as the arc guests, where they played major roles in their storylines but haven't really been seen much since then, but they didn't have the kind of arc guests we get now.

 

Now we still have the core group of Regina, Rumple, Snow, Charming, Emma, and Henry. Hook is more or less filling the Graham slot. Belle seems to be in the Ruby slot of "female character not related to the Charming clan who can sometimes be useful." I guess Will's screen time is along the lines of Whale's. But we really don't have that large supporting cast of townspeople. Granny might show up in the diner, and they'll drag out Grumpy when they need someone to bitch about something. If they need a crowd scene, they'll find some of the other dwarfs. Have we seen Archie in season four other than in that town meeting at the beginning and his scene telling Snow she needed to relax about the baby? Instead of the townspeople fleshing out the town, we have the arc characters, who will all be gone at the end of the arc. This arc, the arc characters are all villains, so we have four (now three) present-day villains and five villains in flashbacks.

 

It no longer really feels like a town. It's a movie set that a few people are running around in. There are more "main" characters, so the screen time is divided (and skewed), but there are fewer supporting characters.

[Camera One]

Exactly.  Where there should be suspense is lost when the town itself is not a living breathing space.  For example, Ursula was walking around with Hook, with no fear that she might be seen by other people who could tell Cruella, Regina or Rumple of her possible betrayal.  Regina, the undercover agent, was meeting with the "good guys" in the library.  Rumple was walking down Main Street with Cruella and Ursula after his secret entry into town.  As we've said many times before, where are Charming and Snow's loyal guards?  There should be eyes and ears all over town to help the "heroes", as well as those who want to hurt them.  And it gets even worse during times of crisis.  The town is supposedly huge, but Snow by herself can warn everyone and keep everyone safe from the Chernobog?  

Edited March 29, 2015 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

The way they handle reoccurring characters is weird. Besides Granny and the dwarves, the other characters get cameos once in a blue moon just to show they're still there. Some not even that. It gets wonky because with some characters it makes no sense that they're not involved in the current plots. They're absence is so incredibly felt. Mostly with Mulan and Red. Actor scheduling, I know, but they don't even bother to write reasons in why they're not there.

Edited March 29, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[HoodlumSheep]

Actor scheduling, I know, but they don't even bother to write reasons in why they're not there.

That's why i wish they'd either wrap up certain characters' story lines or just decide to "not use" the characters in the sense that they didn't get swept up in the curse. They could still show up in the EF flashbacks and stuff, and their disappearance could be explained with a simple throwaway line. At least we'd be able to stop wondering, "where's so-and-so? Why aren't they helping?"

[Rumsy4]

Someone posted this on imdb. Guess this is where A&E got their idea for 4B. ;-)

[RadioGirl27]

Someone posted this on imdb. Guess this is where A&E got their idea for 4B. ;-)

Lol, if those two guys hadn't appeared at the end, I would have sworn that A&E wrote that video.

[Zuleikha]

They could still show up in the EF flashbacks and stuff, and their disappearance could be explained with a simple throwaway line. At least we'd be able to stop wondering, "where's so-and-so? Why aren't they helping?"

 

Mulan and Ruby are the only two that distract me. Dr. Whale and Archie still show up when it makes sense for them (although iZombie may keep people out of the hospital for a while). I would have liked more Tink or Nova, but we almost never see the fairies.

 

But Mulan and Ruby both definitely distract me because they're characters who should be in the thick of things. With Mulan, they should have had a short exchange between Aurora and Robin where Robin explained Mulan went back to her kingdom and wasn't caught by curse 2.0. I don't know what they can do about Ruby, though. I guess the same thing of having a short exchange with Granny saying that Ruby was traveling somewhere and escaped the curse.

 

I also wish we'd had follow up to the Grumpy/Nova episode. It wasn't my favorite by any stretch of the imagination, but every now and then it bothers me to have no idea what happened to the two of them and why they're not together (other than Amy Acker not being available).

[Camera One]

I guess the same thing of having a short exchange with Granny saying that Ruby was traveling somewhere and escaped the curse.

 

Or even, that Granny is worried where Red went.  Which could give her a line or two, with a bit of substance.  But no, they need to use her to demand that Snow fix the electrical grid a few days after childbirth, incite mobs to hunt down Elsa, or walk around with her crossbow during the Shattered Sight curse after ample warning was given to lock themselves up.  Is it too much to ask to use supporting characters without completely destroying their integrity?

Edited March 29, 2015 by Camera One

[Souris]

What's everybody's take on how the Author storyline is going over with the general viewership? I feel like I'm seeing a lot of grousing and dislike of it, and a lot of general dissatisfaction with the show, but I'm not sure if that's just because I'M doing a lot of grousing about it, so I'm noticing it more.

[YaddaYadda]

I guess it depends who you speak to.  I find that being online, it's a lot easier to get lost in the whole WTF moments that we collectively have and we discuss stuff to death for a whole week.  It's like when 411 aired and we were all pretty angry about it and the not!outcome.  We had 10 weeks to keep being angry about it.  Meanwhile, my friend who is a casual viewer did have her WTF moment, but she didn't dwell on it.  I have a friend who is on Tumblr and she's like me, more of a bang your head on the wall type of person.  

 

Casual viewers don't care.  Offliners, don't care.  They watch the show for what it is, they don't dissect it to the extreme.  My friend is the one who pointed out to me the whole Peddler thing and how him being trapped in the book meant that there was someone else who took over for him.  I posted it in the thread, but it wasn't my idea.  She reacts better than me to stuff, that's for sure.

[Mathius]

I suspect casual viewers aren't so much angry than they are completely UNINTERESTED. This story arc is boring, which is why it's hit an all-new low in how many viewers catch it live.