The Villains of Once Upon a Time

[KingOfHearts]

I agree, Rumsy. It's the emotional aftermath and payoff that is often lacking. Example: Emma sees Regina burn her mother at the stake, yet isn't traumatized. Then she feels guilt about saving a life at the cost of Regina's boyfriend? For reals? It's not necessarily the morality that gets me, but the weird emotional reaction, or lack thereof.

Then you have Henry, who didn't shed a single tear over his dad's death.

[Camera One]

But the writers take what is not evil, and twist it into something that is.

 

In some ways, I think it is an interesting approach, since it stresses perception.  These villains (well, in this case Regina and Cora) perceived the events in a really egocentric way and twisted the event to justify hurting others, almost so they could deny their own responsibility (in Regina's case, not wanting to see Cora as responsible).  They put the locus of responsibility always on others.  In some ways, that kept them villains.  Whereas making Eva legitimately mess up Cora's life, or making Snow deliberating break up Regina and Daniel, would have made Regina and Cora true victims.  The way the story on this show has been framed, Regina and Cora perceive themselves to be victims to justify their villainy, which makes them villains.  In that sense, I think they did the right thing.

 

Whereas with Snow White, that was the opposite perception of an event, where a person blamed themselves for circumstances which were mostly outside their control and yet completely took on internal responsibility for it. 

Edited August 4, 2014 by Camera One

[FabulousTater]

Then you have Henry, who didn't shed a single tear over his dad's death.

Well, Henry (AND MOST EVERYONE ELSE) knew Nealfire for a grand total of 2 weeks. That anyone outside of Rumple shed a single tear over him was ridiculous, absurd, and LOL worthy. And that Snoring named their baby after him, hell even naming someone's dog after him, is fucked up. ( though fine, I'll give you Emma was all boo-hoo-hoo, but she hadn't seen his sorry carcass for 12 years after dumping her in jail, so her reaction was just overly contrived IMO (and gotta say, I lost some respect for her character because of that entire Neverland "Oh noooes, the douche who sent me to jail is dead  *but not really* I am inconsolable" arc. BLECH )...don't even get me started on the S3B bullshit of everyone being suddenly sad faced about someone they could barely remember (and hadn't seen in a year for some) ).

Edited August 4, 2014 by FabulousTater

[Camera One]

I've seen people cry when an acquaintance was killed, so I don't think would be at all out of place if Henry did cry, considering they spent time together and he had planned on getting to know his father better.  A life was cut short, and that's always sad to me.  But on the other hand, the actor who plays Henry might not have been able to handle it, and in the context of that short scene, it would have been a little out of place for an overwrought crying scene.   Actually, if this show was more character-centered, Henry should for sure be dealing with the death of his father in 4A, though I doubt we will see this.

[Rumsy4]

In some ways, I think it is an interesting approach, since it stresses perception.  These villains (well, in this case Regina and Cora) perceived the events in a really egocentric way and twisted the event to justify hurting others, almost so they could deny their own responsibility (in Regina's case, not wanting to see Cora as responsible).  They put the locus of responsibility always on others.  In some ways, that kept them villains. ....

 

Whereas with Snow White, that was the opposite perception of an event, where a person blamed themselves for circumstances which were mostly outside their control and yet completely took on internal responsibility for it. 

 

That would be a good approach, if there was an effective counterpoint in each case showing a different perspective. But we have no one in-show calling BS on Regina blaming Snow, and her husband and daughter let Regina get away with calling Snow Cora's murderer right in front of them. 

[KingOfHearts]

 

Well, Henry (AND MOST EVERYONE ELSE) knew him for a grand total of 2 weeks.

I'm justifying a completely subjective reaction, so please bear with me. In those two weeks, Henry and Neal got a long very well. They probably got along better than anyone else Neal has interacted with. Neal also helped save Henry in Neverland, so I think Henry very well respected his dad. I think losing your dad would be hard even if you only knew him for a grand total of two weeks, and especially if in those two weeks you admired him as a hero. Plus it was pretty saddening he never got to say goodbye.

 

It's worth noting that even two weeks in Storybrooke time after Graham's death, he was still being mourned for. It was only an episode for us, but in the show it had been a while. Most of it was handled in Offscreenville. It throws the viewer off when they don't see it, I must say.

 

More on the topic of Villains, it's my conspiracy theory that Adam & Eddie purposely twist morals around to mess with the audience.

Edited August 4, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Dani-Ellie]

That would be a good approach, if there was an effective counterpoint in each case showing a different perspective.

 

Right. It's not necessarily the fact that the villains see themselves as the victims that's my problem (because honestly, everyone is the hero of their own story). It's the fact that the narrative is agreeing with the villains and perpetuating their warped worldview by not allowing the other side into the equation in any kind of meaningful sense.

 

There's the saying that the truth is somewhere in between the two sides of every story, but with this show, the villains' side of the story is what we see and the good guys' side of the story is getting shortchanged by the narrative.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Dani-Ellie

[FabulousTater]

I think losing your dad would be hard even if you only knew him for a grand total of two weeks

I can weirdly say I have some experience here, and like you said this is subjective, but meeting a close blood relation out of the blue for the first time in your life doesn't automagically create feelings of closeness. At all (it didn't for me). And that closeness doesn't form in two weeks. At all. In two weeks you get, "Well, I see you're not a serial killer, so maybe we can talk later." But developing enough attachment after only two weeks to the extent that I would cry over their grave? Ya, NO.

 

(And mind you, Henry's interactions with Nealfire were a handful of hours here and there over a two week period and NOT 24/7 interaction. Seriously, the more I think about it the more on target I think the show actually was with Henry's reaction/non-reaction)

 

But I'll give you Henry is a child and maybe he could have formed an attachment quickly but even still...I think he was more in love with the notion of a father than the actual person. Especially as evidenced by his "Oh, whelp. He's dead. Again."

 

...It just didn't bother me that Henry wasn't sprawled over Nealfire's tombstone, crying a river that would make Woegina proud (or jealous, hard to say with her). Henry barely knew him. He seemed sad that he'd never get to know him better and that's it, which seems commensurate with knowing him only a very short amount of time. I think that's about all you can ask considering that Henry had a closer relationship with his XBox than with his "father" (whom for all intents and purposes amounted to being a sperm donor more than anything else).

Edited August 4, 2014 by FabulousTater

[KingOfHearts]

 

There's the saying that the truth is somewhere in between the two sides of every story, but with this show, the villains' side of the story is what we see and the good guys' side of the story is getting shortchanged by the narrative.

 

It goes back to character balancing. The villains get the main narrative, while the heroes are always supporting players. It's due in part to (A villains are more entertaining to watch and (B villains are less restrictive because they can do whatever the writers want via absent moral code. The less you gives heroes to do, the more two-dimensional and cardboard-like they become. While Rumple/Regina have a grand redemption arc, the heroes don't have any major goals to press toward.

 

I would, quite honestly, love to see a hero go dark.

Edited August 4, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Dani-Ellie]

While Rumple/Regina have a grand redemption arc, the heroes don't have any major goals to press toward.

 

I agree that writing a redemption arc must be fun, but I can think of a bajillion ways Snow/Charming/Emma learning how to come together as a family could have been just as fun and interesting and emotionally satisfying. But that would require kitchen sink conversations and apparently those are not worthy of attention. They'd rather write Scene 4548632 of Regina deciding whether or not to wear her Evil Queen hat today.

 

(Me? Bitter? Nah. ;))

[Rumsy4]

I would, quite honestly, love to see a hero go dark.

I vote for Marian. She's a goner in any case. Let her take down Regina and Rumple as a final act of vengeance before she dies. Not kill them, but defang them. Take magic away from Rumple and Regina, and force them to deal with the consequences of their actions like every one else.

[Camera One]

I agree that writing a redemption arc must be fun, but I can think of a bajillion ways Snow/Charming/Emma learning how to come together as a family could have been just as fun and interesting and emotionally satisfying. But that would require kitchen sink conversations and apparently those are not worthy of attention.

 

Yes!  There is so much potential there.  To quote a horrible speech, the writers focus on the villains because it is easy.  The hard path is to write for the "good guys" while keeping them good guys.  It would be easy to turn them bad... so many shows have done that.  

[KingOfHearts]

I vote for Marian. She's a goner in any case. Let her take down Regina and Rumple as a final act of vengeance before she dies. Not kill them, but defang them. Take magic away from Rumple and Regina, and force them to deal with the consequences of their actions like every one else.

 

I just laughed out loud.

 

Pan and Zelena were both excellent candidates to incapacitate Rumple and Regina. Too bad the writers circumnavigated this "dilemma" by giving them some contrivances to make them magically saved the day. What if they had to use actual brain power and teamwork? Imagine that...

Edited August 4, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

I vote for Marian. She's a goner in any case.

 

In the closing moment of the S3 finale, after Marion saw Regina and Emma explained no worries, I seriously expected Marion to pull out a giant ass knife and plunge it into Regina in the middle of the diner, as the grand cliffhanger.  

Edited August 4, 2014 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

 

In the closing moment of the S3 finale, as they walked towards one another, I seriously expected Marion to pull out a giant ass knife and plunge it into Regina in the middle of the diner, as the grand cliffhanger.

Or better yet, have a mysterious person stab Rumple with his dagger.

Edited August 4, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

If they wanted to do a really cheesy soap-opera-ish ending to S3, they could have done the Zelena murder mystery.  Last moment is Zelena being killed in cell, but before that there's a montage with everyone arming themselves with a weapon and heading towards the police station:

- Rumple, with his dagger to avenge Neal

- Regina grabbing a poisoned apple to choke Zelena with

- Snow, outfitting herself as Bandit Snow, angry at harm done to baby 

- Charming, sneaking out with his sword, angry at harm done to baby

- Robin, with his bow and arrow, revenge for harm done to poor Reginie

- Hook, with his, hook, revenge for cursed lips

- Emma, with some choice bailbondswoman tools

- Henry, with his heavy book to conk Zelena out for killing his father

- Aurora and Little John, with furballs to choke Zelena with, revenge for being turned into Monkeys

- Walsh, finally back in his human form

- Glinda, who just freed herself from Land of Snow

- Dorothy who just arrived in town in a tornado

- Belle, with her stilettos, who didn't appreciate being a frozen customer service representative

- Elsa who just left the barn with an old vendetta

Edited August 4, 2014 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

Camera One, you seriously need to start writing for Once. I would pay money to watch that episode.

[Mari]

It's due in part to (A villains are more entertaining to watch and (B villains are less restrictive because they can do whatever the writers want via absent moral code. The less you gives heroes to do, the more two-dimensional and cardboard-like they become. While Rumple/Regina have a grand redemption arc, the heroes don't have any major goals to press toward.

I think mileage varies on this one.

 

Personally, the more Rumple and Regina are brought to the front and center, and the more over the top mwhahaha they are, the less entertaining I find them.  It's to the point I cringe a little when they go full Dark Imp with Rumplestiltskin, and have muted Regina scenes.

 

I have enjoyed both in smaller doses--but find the more Rumple there is, the more creepy he is (and not in the good way), and the more Regina there is, the more I feel like she's being pushed down my throat.

 

And while Rumple's redemption arc was being handled marginally better than Regina's, both have been handled badly enough that the whipping back and forth between the two extremes isn't created well-rounded, interesting characters with nuance.  It's created cartoony characters that have no genuine emotion, only whatever mask will create the most drama.

[Shanna Marie]

Then you have Henry, who didn't shed a single tear over his dad's death.

Which time around, when they thought he was dead after he was shot and sent through a portal in season 2 or when he really died in season 3? Because when he died in season 3, Henry didn't even remember having ever met his father. By the time he got his memories back, they were somewhat removed from the immediacy of his death. It seems to me like the kind of thing where the emotional reaction may hit at some other time, when everything catches up to him. A pretty realistic scenario might be if he and Hook have another "I knew your dad when he was just a little older than you" chat and Henry then finds himself crying for the loss of what might have been.

 

But otherwise, in general, I wholeheartedly agree with the imbalance problem, that if they were going to show that being a hero or villain depends on perspective, then they needed to make the "crimes" more comparable and allow both sides to react appropriately. Really, the lack of realistic reaction to what the villains have done is one of the show's biggest flaws, and that's not even accurate to the fairy tale source material. In fairy tales, the villains' actions are big and out of control, but so are the responses. The villains are punished in a big way, even if it's not the heroes doing the punishing. Karma catches up, like the birds pecking out the eyes of Cinderella's stepsisters. There's also the fact that even in fantasy, you have to ground it in reality. Events may be fantastical, but if you want us to relate to the characters, they need to act like people we can relate to, and that means they need to react in realistic ways. They may not freak out about magic because that's normal to them, but things like death and loss are universal, and you'd expect people to respond the way we do. It creates a sense of detachment when the characters just drift through the story, not responding like any human being would -- like not responding to the person you just saw trying to burn your mother at the stake; not remaining wary of the woman you believe cursed a kingdom and killed people, even if she did raise you; not reacting at all to learning your boyfriend murdered his wife; not being worried about being anywhere near the woman who spent years trying to kill you and who has never yet said she's done with that. And meanwhile, the villains are overreacting to every little thing that happens to them while the show treats that as perfectly reasonable.

 

It's this weird disconnect where they show the villains being truly villainous, then try to make it look like a "matter of perspective" story in which the good guys' minor flaws are deemed just as bad as the villainy and we're supposed to sympathize with every little setback the villains suffer.

 

It's due in part to (A villains are more entertaining to watch

I heartily disagree with this. It's only true for lazy writers. I want to find and curse whoever started spouting this idea because it's resulted in some really awful writing. If your heroes aren't interesting, then you haven't done your job as a writer, and that "the villains are just more interesting" thing is just an excuse. I really don't give a flip about the villains unless they're on a viable redemption path and working hard to win their way into my good graces.

[KingOfHearts]

 

I heartily disagree with this. It's only true for lazy writers.

 

It's true for the mainstream audience on Once Upon a Time, because the writers are bad at making the heroes entertaining to watch. I've seen very few mainstream watchers root for the heroes when it comes to this show lately, except when it comes to CS. Most of their viewers, judging from social media and marketing, are there for Regina and Rumple. I don't necessarily find villains more entertaining, but they're fixed to be the main draw on this show.

 

I agree the writers are lazy and both sides should be entertaining, but they're not made to be on this show. It's easier to twist villains around than twisting heroes, so they choose the simpler path because they don't have any longterm plans.

 

In short, they get more money from Wicked vs. Evil than Charming family kitchen sink conversations.

Edited August 5, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

I heartily disagree with this. It's only true for lazy writers.

 

I disagree with it too, but as KingofHearts pointed out, it is not uncommon for villains to be more popular and the marketing plays to that.  Villains are the ones chewing the scenery.  It is obvious that the writers find it more fun to write Regina declaring herself The Evil Queen and gleefully vowing to destroy someone's life, or Rumple giggling like a maniac, or Zelena seductively shaving Mr. Gold, or Peter Pan smirking Pan never fails, than a kitchen sink conversation.

 

 

 

It seems to me like the kind of thing where the emotional reaction may hit at some other time, when everything catches up to him.

 

Well said.  Though since it's this show, it will never catch up to him since everyone will be preoccupied with not being turned into a block of ice in 4A.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

Though since it's this show, it will never catch up to him since everyone will be preoccupied with not being turned into a block of ice in 4A.

Well, yeah, since now Neal's death is the distant past and long-forgotten, and they're just not interested in writing emotional character-centric scenes. But I do think the circumstances around Neal's death meant that Henry didn't get to have a normal grief response. Unlike the villains, where we have to stop everything and let them emote.

 

I disagree with it too, but as KingofHearts pointed out, it is not uncommon for villains to be more popular and the marketing plays to that.  Villains are the ones chewing the scenery.  It is obvious that the writers find it more fun to write Regina declaring herself The Evil Queen and gleefully vowing to destroy someone's life, or Rumple giggling like a maniac, or Zelena seductively shaving Mr. Gold, or Peter Pan smirking Pan never fails, than a kitchen sink conversation.

 

And that's why we get into a downward spiral. Writing really interesting good guys who remain good is hard, so it's easier to write the villains in a fun way, which means the fans like the villains, which means they market the villains, which means they write for the villains, which makes them more interesting, and so on. I guess I've just never understood the fondness for villains. Regina bores me because I can't tolerate whining, and most of the time I don't even find her quips all that amusing because they strike me as trying too hard. Give me Emma's or Bandit Snow's snark any day. Rumple is just a bully, which isn't very intriguing. I want to know way more about the heroes and what makes them tick. Being a hero is as difficult as writing a hero, so why do they persevere when it would be so much easier to say "what the hell" and just do whatever they want?

[Curio]

In fairy tales, the villains' actions are big and out of control, but so are the responses. The villains are punished in a big way, even if it's not the heroes doing the punishing. Karma catches up, like the birds pecking out the eyes of Cinderella's stepsisters.

I know a lot of people mocked Hook in Season 2 for the amount of times he got knocked out, tied up, or was just shown as incompetent... but I actually really enjoyed all that because it was basically the universe whacking him upside the head with a good dose of karma for his villainous actions. Rumple has had some karmic payback by having the most important person in his life (Bae, not Belle) die in front of him, and then he was controlled by Zelena for half a season. But I'm still waiting for Regina to get some karmic payback that lasts more than an episode or two for me to get on board with her redemption arc.

 

Writing really interesting good guys who remain good is hard, so it's easier to write the villains in a fun way.

The sad thing is that these writers have proven they can write interesting good guys. Emma is one of the most interesting characters on the show, but we still don't know a whole ton about her past or what makes her tick beyond being an orphan and bailbonds person.

[FabulousTater]

But I'm still waiting for Regina to get some karmic payback that lasts more than an episode or two for me to get on board with her redemption arc.

ITA. I still think if the writers had really wanted for Regina to pay, even a little bit, for all the hell she's brought down on everyone else they would've never written Henry getting his memories back. Henry's memory loss of Regina should've been permanent. Because that is paying a price.  Instead, he was gone for only a year, and as it turns out later, a year that she didn't even remember. And as far as the viewing audience was concerned the whole storyline was utterly pointless within 6-ish episodes.

Edited August 5, 2014 by FabulousTater

[KingOfHearts]

 

ITA. I still think if the writers had really wanted for Regina to pay, even a little bit, for all the hell she's brought down on everyone else they would've never written Henry getting his memories back. Henry's memory loss of Regina should've been permanent. Because that is paying a price.  Instead, he was gone for only a year, and as it turns out later, a year that she didn't even remember. And as far as the viewing audience was concerned the whole storyline was utterly pointless within 6-ish episodes.

 

Replying in All Seasons.

[KAOS Agent]

Considering the writers said that her weird evil grin at the end of "Kansas" was just Regina expressing joy at finally winning because she never wins, I'm not a bit surprised that Regina ends up as the only villain who's never paid a real price. They actually think that because her own actions and self-pitying beliefs make her unhappy, she doesn't deserve to receive the karmic retribution that they desperately need to give her. And no, Marian returning from the dead to interrupt her week old love affair is not going to cut it.

 

I agree with @Curio in that Captain Floor was pretty much the gods giving Hook instant pay back for his misdeeds. Shoot Belle? Bang immediately hit by a car. Stab Rumpel? Slammed over the head by Emma and left tied up in a storage unit. It's like someone was trying to tell him something. It's not so shocking that he started to put it together that in seeking vengeance the only one he was really hurting was himself. He just needed someone to literally hit him upside the head multiple times before he got it. Sadly, unlike Hook, most of the villains on this show are too powerful to get these continual reminders that they are horrible people who need to stop being horrible in order for someone to like them. Plus, they even get their own personal cheerleaders in Snow and Belle. 

[Jean]

I don't think Woegina belongs in this thread. A&E clearly view her as their biggest victim pure magic heroine. She's the most special snowflake ever created and like A&E said in their own words, this show is really just expensive fanfiction. Woegina fanfiction that is.

I also don't agree with the notion that villains are more popular in general. Hello Avengers? Or any of the comic books heroes. Or series based on good guys like Buffy, Veronica Mars, Castle, etc. Is Joffrey more poular than Arya from Game of Thrones? Or Viserys more popular than Tyrion (ok Tyrion is not a straight up good guy but relatively)? That's not to say villains don't get their fair share of love but usually it's a more even playing field.

I will admit I like the villains better on Once, the real ones anyway, not the fake St. of Perpetual Whining. There's no real heroes to root for. I mean what are we supposed to root for, for Snow to permanently lodge herself up Woegina's butt? They don't do anything. Usually the name of the game is you root for the heroes to take down the bad guys, except here they've made the bad guys, poor misunderstood victims so now what? The show says you can't root for Snow taking down Cora cause that's all dark and evil alongside the epic endless tears by you know who and it becomes obvious who Once wants you to root for and it's not the good guys.

I will also say even for Once can we really say who's popular or not based on online loud rabid fan girls. For all we know the offliners, aka the 99.9% of viewers might love sweet sappy Belle the most. She is a Disney princess. They come with a built in fanbase. Woegina is the most popular? When the story focused on her whining victim self, the ratings went into a free fall. I bet the average ratings for her centric episodes are no better than anyone else's. I think that's a good indicator since the promos always advertise whose story is focused on in the next episode. What's the next big thing or perhaps the biggest thing to happen for Once? Elsa. It's not Hans that's being advertised and talked about everywhere. It's Elsa, the good guy.

Also maybe the Snow and Charming fanbase is just really quiet or inactive when it comes to chatting and yelling online but there's something to be said for Ginny being the only one from Once to consistently get nominated for the popularity awards like Teen Choice and People's Choice. Now maybe that speaks more to Ginny's popularity than Snow per se but that still counts. If it's only due to name recognition I think Robert has greater name recognition than Ginny.

[FabulousTater]

There's no real heroes to root for. I mean what are we supposed to root for, for Snow to permanently lodge herself up Woegina's butt?

OMG. LMAO! *crying* I'm laughing so hard at this right now. Well played. Also, the accompanying visual in my head just made me want to see OUAT turned into a South Park episode.

[Camera One]

I also don't agree with the notion that villains are more popular in general. Hello Avengers? Or any of the comic books heroes.

 

At the very least, it's an even draw a lot of times.  And that's not the case for every comic book.  For every person watching Batman for Batman, there's equal numbers or more watching for the Joker, the Penguin, Catwoman, etc.  And there's also a huge draw for characters fallen from grace who are seeking redemption.  For example, Snape from Harry Potter.  And for a show like "Buffy", they kept bringing back Faith, or Spike, by popular demand.  

 

And no matter what the general public prefers, all that matters is the WRITERS are more interested in the villains and prefers them.  Not to mention the people marketing the show, as KingofHearts mentioned way back.

 

Considering the writers said that her weird evil grin at the end of "Kansas" was just Regina expressing joy at finally winning because she never wins, 

 

Seriously??!!  That look screamed "I want to commit a homicide tonight".  

Edited August 5, 2014 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

 

Considering the writers said that her weird evil grin at the end of "Kansas" was just Regina expressing joy at finally winning because she never wins,

 

I interpreted that as, "Hehe, I beat her. The Evil Queen wins again."

 

Her hero stuff was purely for show. That smirks says more than the writers would like us to believe. Regina is still leaning on her mom's advice: "It's not good or evil that wins, but power." She'll go with whatever side she thinks is winning that day.

Edited August 5, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[stealinghome]

At the very least, it's an even draw a lot of times.... And there's also a huge draw for characters fallen from grace who are seeking redemption.  For example, Snape from Harry Potter.  And for a show like "Buffy", they kept bringing back Faith, or Spike, by popular demand.

Yeah, I was going to say, Loki (from the Avengers movie franchise) has a surprising number of fangirls as well...he's the biggest, most recent example of a villainous character gaining a cult following. (Though I think that this is where the internet, especially tumblr, is a REALLY skewed slice of the audience...most people I know IRL, while they think Tom Hiddleston is very talented and perfect as Loki, pretty much want to see Loki crushed like a cockroach at this point. They have no illusions about him being anything other than an evil psycho.) So I don't think the villain bias is completely made-up, though I agree it helps when the villain is a) a charismatic performer and b) is given enough humanity to make them sympathetic at times.

 

I find myself in total agreement with this tumblr post, on villains and fan reaction to them, and the problem for me is that Adam and Eddie have become those fans where Regina is concerned. The bias is obvious and it just really turns me off the show. I can accept and even sometimes root for a well-done redemption story--I grew up watching and loving Xena, ffs!--but don't try to sell me on the crap that Once has written for "No Regrets" Regina and call it a redemption story.

Edited August 5, 2014 by stealinghome

[KAOS Agent]

 

Usually the name of the game is you root for the heroes to take down the bad guys, except here they've made the bad guys, poor misunderstood victims so now what?

 

See I think this becomes a problem because they now have villains taking on villains. Everyone's sad and misunderstood, so now it's an issue of who has the saddest past. Who is the most misunderstood? Regina has the fan base, so people will be cheering her taking out the villain, although Zelena was so clearly mentally ill that it's kind of gross to cheer for her demise. You also end up with situations where villains are now victims and justified in taking out their oppressors, while the heroes sit around and aren't allowed the same justification for extracting justice on those who injured them. If Regina and Rumpel can somehow turn it around, how come other villains aren't given the same courtesy? Greg became a monster because of Regina's actions, but we're supposed to cheer at his death (which of course I did because I just wanted him off my screen) and enjoy Regina's smug smirk when she learns that he's died. Greg got his comeuppance for torturing Regina & kidnapping Henry, but Regina's actions that led to that little boy being orphaned and actually murdering his father will never be addressed again.

 

It's funny because in some corners of the fandom, there is a lot of shifting of blame off of Regina for the curse and her terror spree onto Rumpel because he made her what she is, but if you want to use that same rationale, Regina made Greg into who he is. Yet somehow Greg is a monster who is solely responsible for his actions, while Regina is just this sad little puppet who deserves forgiveness and love. 

[Camera One]

Villains are people who TELL THE TRUTH.  You know the expression "The truth hurts?"  The truth hurts bar wenches with alcoholic fathers who are tricked by evil gardeners into having their babies.  The truth destroys lives, makes people DIE and causes happy couples to BREAK UP.  You know who has to say "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth"?  Yep, it's CRIMINALS.  Criminals who MURDER mothers.  The expression "The truth will set you free"?  It sets only the SELFISH person free, while causing other people to fall into an INESCAPABLE DOWNWARD SPIRAL of death and destruction.  

Edited August 5, 2014 by Camera One

[kitticup]

Considering the writers said that her weird evil grin at the end of "Kansas" was just Regina expressing joy at finally winning because she never wins, I'm not a bit surprised that Regina ends up as the only villain who's never paid a real price. They actually think that because her own actions and self-pitying beliefs make her unhappy, she doesn't deserve to receive the karmic retribution that they desperately need to give her. And no, Marian returning from the dead to interrupt her week old love affair is not going to cut it.

 

I agree with @Curio in that Captain Floor was pretty much the gods giving Hook instant pay back for his misdeeds. Shoot Belle? Bang immediately hit by a car. Stab Rumpel? Slammed over the head by Emma and left tied up in a storage unit. It's like someone was trying to tell him something. It's not so shocking that he started to put it together that in seeking vengeance the only one he was really hurting was himself. He just needed someone to literally hit him upside the head multiple times before he got it. Sadly, unlike Hook, most of the villains on this show are too powerful to get these continual reminders that they are horrible people who need to stop being horrible in order for someone to like them. Plus, they even get their own personal cheerleaders in Snow and Belle. 

 

I agree that the continual knocks Hook got helped him see that the only one he was hurting was himself, but it also helped that he doesn't let himself fall into self-pity.   He could easily let himself wallow like Regina or Rumple.  Frankly I think Hook has suffered far disproportionately.  He spent at least 200 years at the mercy of Pan and we all know Pan isn't exactly merciful because he wanted vengenance against the man who killed his love and maimed him.   Even when he tries to do the right thing, he often gets it thrown back in his face -- Bae rejecting him, Emma chaining him at the top of the bean stalk, Emma always pushing him away (because of her emotional trauma at the hands of others) and how Charming and others are usually so ready to believe the worst about him.  The good news is that he has learned not to lash out when things don't go his way and stick to doing the right thing.

 

Regina and Rumple have gotten off too easily.  They need to pay heavily for everything they've done.   

[Serena]

Then you have Henry, who didn't shed a single tear over his dad's death.

Henry knew his father for 2 weeks. I'm not saying he shouldn't be sad, but I don't actually think it's strange that he wouldn't have the same emotional reaction he'd have at the loss of Emma, Regina, or Snowing (or even Archie). At this point I think he'll miss the idea of a father, rather than Neal himself (and he can do fatherly things with Charming as well. Bonus point: he won't let him be a dick to Emma! Hopefully).

 

However, the thing that makes me crazy (and I know I'm showing my bias here) is: has Henry's opinion of Neal changed now that he knows what he did to Emma? He was a complete shit to Emma after knowing she lied, and no one even explained to him the real story (which is crazy to me). Now that he knows, what does he think of his father?

 

More on the topic of Villains, it's my conspiracy theory that Adam & Eddie purposely twist morals around to mess with the audience.

Maybe when the show ends we'll find out it's just a big social experiment that Adam and Eddy created for their research, "Why do women marry serial killers in prison, and other stories". They'll show that all you need to do to get people to sympathize with crazy ass murderers is to have them shed a few tears, and the research will be so groundbreaking they'll win a Nobel Prize for... Psychology?

 

It's true for the mainstream audience on Once Upon a Time, because the writers are bad at making the heroes entertaining to watch. I've seen very few mainstream watchers root for the heroes when it comes to this show lately, except when it comes to CS. Most of their viewers, judging from social media and marketing, are there for Regina and Rumple. I don't necessarily find villains more entertaining, but they're fixed to be the main draw on this show.

Well, considering CS and the Tale of Woe of Poor Regina (and sometimes Rumple) are the only storylines that have been given any actual airtime and development... maybe that tells us something. I seem to remember people were all about Snowing in season 1. Wonder why?

[myril]

I find myself in total agreement with this tumblr post, on villains and fan reaction to them, and the problem for me is that Adam and Eddie have become those fans where Regina is concerned. The bias is obvious and it just really turns me off the show. I can accept and even sometimes root for a well-done redemption story--I grew up watching and loving Xena, ffs!--but don't try to sell me on the crap that Once has written for "No Regrets" Regina and call it a redemption story.

 

Reminds me of the baffling psych of serial killer groupies.

 

I get being fascinated by the evil, by serial killers. My hometown has its own famous serial killer and I am fascinated by his story, though besides his psych the historical context, culture is an aspect interesting me as much if not more (it happened about a 100 years ago). The trial has been commented on by a socialpsychologist and there are well documented protocols of interviews a psychiatrist did with the killer, interesting to study for someone who studied socialpsychology and sociology. As much I am intrigued by exploring the lives for example of Irma Grese or Maria Mandl, both guards in concentration camps and executed for it.  How do people tick being able to do such things. Fascination, yes.

 

What I don't get are the apologetic stretches people do. No matter how much I dig into the psych, and understand emotions, motivations, behavior, and find it interesting to muse, why these killers do the things they do while I don't, I never forget or try to excuse that they are killers and cruel torturers. Just because I might understand motivation even, doesn't mean I turn to think that it was not all wrong and evil. But I have no problem either to feel sympathy for a person and still put them away when they did wrong, did crimes, probably not a common trait.

 

I loved Xena because she was called out for the crap she did, and she didn't deny and did regret. And she paid for it. Though I disliked most of the Heaven-and-Hell and redemption of Callisto arc (arg!), on the other hand it was an attempt to show the ultimate act of love, not well written, but it had moments. I still can live better with that arc though than with what Once is doing with Regina.

 

It probably makes though a difference in my perception of Rumple compared to Regina, that he is not as much haloed. I have the impression it's mostly shipping of Rumple and Belle, there don't seem to be much just Rumple love around, while Regina gets love as character on her own. The writers and cast don't seem to be such fanboys/-girls of Rumple as however redeemed character, and certainly Carlyle enjoys to play him as a bad man. Okay, Espenson has some writer's love for Rumple, but I don't have the impression of her, that she is not seeing his dark side for what it is, but she might be a blind to the creepy sides of RumBelle.

 

It's a difference if writers write a character to be loved by audience or to be interesting for audience. Of course one can't help it at times, when (part of) the audience nevertheless falls in love with the character.

 

But I agree, that a problem on the show is, that especially Regina is not called out anymore for her evil acts (if I remember right in season 1 people did). It's like the people of Enchanted Forest / Storybrooke have given up on that because they decided she is a crazy lost cause, untouchable as part of the Charming clan, or are falling for a poor abused girl sob fest. Neither is Rumple called out, although I do give the writers a bit of slack in this case for the past season, for setting up the bad Pan story Rumple in contrast got the abandoned boy background, and he was a bit of messed up first in present time, convinced he'd lost his son. 3B Rumple was mostly a toyboy. But he paid now a huge price and lost his son finally. Will see how things develop in the next season, hopefully some more comes back onto him, it would makes sense and could be interesting drama.

 

But Regina - she is a lost cause to me. I am at the point to wish, they would send her off to some faraway forest or better island and let her have her happy ending. Be done with it. And then maybe we will get better writing again. This costly fanfiction bores me at best or annoys me. Instead they can keep Elizabeth Mitchell around, if she plays the Black Fairy and original Snow Queen in one person, if you like as revengeful sister of Maleficent. Would be good reason to retire the Charmings and bring in Sleeping Beauty Clan. And ...  I should put that into Wishing on a star.

 

There is a huge difference of drowning a great villain with a sob story or give them a relatable background, which makes us feel creeped out, because it might be sometimes so easy to go down the evil road.

 

I can relate way better with Hook, it's not a sob story, not even the story with his brother was, he had to pay, and he is showing some effort now to change, not perfect, thankfully not, but I buy into him honestly trying.

 

The gates of hell are open night and day;

Smooth the descent, and easy is the way:

But to return, and view the cheerful skies,

In this the task and mighty labor lies.

Virgil, Aeneid

 

 

Maybe when the show ends we'll find out it's just a big social experiment that Adam and Eddy created for their research, "Why do women marry serial killers in prison, and other stories". They'll show that all you need to do to get people to sympathize with crazy ass murderers is to have them shed a few tears, and the research will be so groundbreaking they'll win a Nobel Prize for... Psychology?

 

Maybe. And they are showing, that this fascination might be not just with men. So far research has mostly only seen or looked at women becoming groupies of men, but perhaps could work for women as serial killers as well. Trying to save the little boy inside of the bad man is speculated as one explanation for the groupies' behavior, or that they think they can change the man. Rumple has Belle, and Regina seem to get Robin, and people can happily identify with them.

Edited August 5, 2014 by katusch

[KingOfHearts]

 

At this point I think he'll miss the idea of a father, rather than Neal himself

Replying in All Seasons.

Edited August 5, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[ShadowFacts]

Males have a lot of societal pressure not to display emotions, especially publicly.  I also think that even if Henry barely knew Neal, and for a short time, the loss would still be large given that he was brought up without a father or father figure.  By Regina, to boot.  So having someone to look forward to having in his life, to look up to, snatched away, is a big deal that was given short shrift, so far.  But what emotional moment isn't given short shrift, unless it's Regina?

[Shanna Marie]

I agree that the continual knocks Hook got helped him see that the only one he was hurting was himself, but it also helped that he doesn't let himself fall into self-pity.

Hook is pretty much a case study in how to redeem a villain or antagonist, which is what makes the missteps with Regina even more frustrating because they know how to do it. Karma has dealt with him, repeatedly. He ran off with another man's wife, but after a few years of apparent happiness he lost a hand and his love. He dedicates himself to a grand revenge scheme and gets trapped in Neverland for centuries, then returns to his home world and becomes a rather pathetic drunk. He goes after Belle to get to Rumple and ends up in Regina's clutches and then in Cora's clutches, being forced to do their dirty work. His pinballing around anyone he thinks might help him results in no one really trusting him and everyone betraying him. He goes after Belle again and gets hit by a car. He nearly kills Rumple and ends up in Greg and Tamara's clutches. He betrays Ariel and gets cursed by Zelena. And, ultimately, he has to give up his ship (true, he chose to do so, but you could look at it as karmic payback for a life of piracy that getting something he wanted required him giving up his pirate ship). So there is the sense that he did suffer for his crimes and has received payback. He's got a lot of self-awareness and suffers no delusions as to what a horrible person he was, but he doesn't sink into self pity about it. Even when he did turn himself around, it took a while for the others to trust him, and it doesn't take much for them to doubt him again, which he's earned because he was so shifty before. That's a big difference from Regina, who was accepted by the others without much question without her ever having come to awareness of what she's done, and without her having any kind of actual karmic retribution. When she does suffer a loss, it's portrayed as being massively unfair, and poor Regina.

 

And they are showing, that this fascination might be not just with men. So far research has mostly only seen or looked at women becoming groupies of men, but perhaps could work for women as serial killers as well.

Though in this case, I don't think that the Regina groupies are men who think they can make her better. They seem to be females who sympathize or relate to her and who try to turn her into the victim. The male Regina fans seem to mostly enjoy her appearance (especially in Evil Queen mode -- leather, cleavage and corsets) and her snark but don't seem to be under any illusion about how evil she is and don't seem to have any desire to save her or spin her story to make her a victim (at least, that's my impression from discussions I've had with men in real life).

[Serena]

Oh, I agree. I mean, Regina does have a big lesbian fanbase - so maybe there is a "I can make her better" component there. But mostly I've noticed it's people who feel victimized in life, and feel like Regina has been unjustly victimized by the evil, eviiiil Charmings also. 

[stealinghome]

Agreed, @Serena. It was a really telling moment for me a few months ago when I ran across this massive headcanon tumblr post where the poster was talking about how life at Leopold's court would have been so, so hard for Regina as a woman of color. And I mean no disrespect to the very real discrimination that women of color face every day when I say this, but: I call bs on that entire post because *we have never seen any evidence that the Enchanted Forest has any sort of racial prejudice at all*--and in fact there's way more evidence to suggest that they have no racial prejudice at all. So to me that particular post was just so clearly a moment in which the poster was so obviously projecting his/her own life experiences onto Regina to make Regina a victim in a really weird way that allowed the poster to then identify with her and kind of cheer her on and excuse all her evil. And I'm not saying the poster herself hasn't been victimized or discriminated against--I believe she has, absolutely. I'm saying I don't think *Regina* was discriminated against or victimized based on race, and you're bringing things into the text that aren't there to create an elaborate headcanon about it otherwise. It was just very clearly a moment where Regina was the blank canvas onto which a lot of personal-social issues were being projected. And my suspicion is that that happens a LOT, particularly on tumblr (I would bet money, for example, that a lot of the Loki stans who think he's just a poor, victimized, harmless lamb to whom Big Bad Odin and Thor have been *just so mean* themselves always feel like the unpopular kid, the nerdy kid, the one eclipsed by the jock older brother or sister or whatever).

Edited August 5, 2014 by stealinghome

[ShadowFacts]

I get the victim projection thing, but where I lose the connection is why victimized viewers pick Regina to identify with, when what she does with her "victimhood" is so loser-ish?  She doesn't use her power in a smart way, she alienates people (when she's not killing or imprisoning them, etc.) and she is not happy, not by a long shot. She isn't winning.  So why not identify instead with other so-called victims like the Charmings, who are a little happier?   I would rather align myself with Emma and her struggles than Regina.  Maybe the rabid Regina fans actually enjoy the continuing suffering of poor Regina because she is powerful, large and in charge and at the same time keeps on getting battered and then blames others for everything.  They can have it both ways.  I don't get it, and I also don't know why I try to get it, except that I see it at play in real life, I guess, and it bothers me (e.g. people feeling sorry for George Zimmerman).

[Mathius]

Relevant:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mUu0uMjt_qE

[KingOfHearts]

 

Relevant:

https://m.youtube.co...h?v=mUu0uMjt_qE

 

I disagree that villains feel justified, or don't think of themselves as villains, especially the ones on Once. They enjoy their villainy very sadistically, and they revel in it. They're fully aware they're in the wrong, but they choose to keep doing the wrong things because of their insecurities they don't want to let go of. Their sob stories really don't stir me at all, plus they're not even convincing enough to warrant how evil they are.

Edited August 8, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Dani-Ellie]

What I find interesting is that I could have felt like Regina, at least, felt justified in her villainy if the writing had chosen to let her grow and recognize eventually that she was indeed wrong. Instead, the writing has her making the same choices over and over again and Lana plays up the sadistic wickedness (see: the smirk upon hearing that Greg/Owen was dead or the glee upon watching Snow burn at the stake), all of which makes the villainy a choice. Which, I'm sorry, but this isn't being misunderstood or feeling justified. This is being evil, period, full stop. This is evil for the sake of it, because on some level, Regina and Rumple like it.

[Shanna Marie]

I disagree that villains feel justified, or don't think of themselves as villains, especially the ones on Once. They enjoy their villainy very sadistically, and they revel in it. They're fully aware they're in the wrong, but they choose to keep doing the wrong things because of their insecurities they don't want to let go of.

That may be true for Rumple, but I don't get the feeling that Regina is aware that she's wrong or a villain. She may have embraced the "Evil Queen" identity because of the effect it has on people, but I don't think she has ever considered that she's not the victim. She still seems to feel entirely justified in all the things she's done, that she was horribly wronged by Snow, and everything she's done in response to that was the right thing to do and that she had absolutely no other choice. This is the woman who felt wronged by a child who didn't want to give up his life to stay with her and felt justified in imprisoning and killing his father, and continued to see him as the villain in that scenario. I also never really felt like Cora saw herself as a villain. She felt like life dealt her a raw deal, and so she was totally justified in everything she did to put herself and her daughter in positions of power.

[Mari]

What I find interesting is that I could have felt like Regina, at least, felt justified in her villainy if the writing had chosen to let her grow and recognize eventually that she was indeed wrong. Instead, the writing has her making the same choices over and over again and Lana plays up the sadistic wickedness (see: the smirk upon hearing that Greg/Owen was dead or the glee upon watching Snow burn at the stake), all of which makes the villainy a choice. Which, I'm sorry, but this isn't being misunderstood or feeling justified. This is being evil, period, full stop. This is evil for the sake of it, because on some level, Regina and Rumple like it.

 

 

That may be true for Rumple, but I don't get the feeling that Regina is aware that she's wrong or a villain. She may have embraced the "Evil Queen" identity because of the effect it has on people, but I don't think she has ever considered that she's not the victim. She still seems to feel entirely justified in all the things she's done, that she was horribly wronged by Snow, and everything she's done in response to that was the right thing to do and that she had absolutely no other choice.

Personally, I think the answer is both and neither.

 

It seems like Regina both feels the pain she inflicts on others is justified, because she's their victim somehow, and truly enjoys watching them be in pain and causing it.

 

She knows that others would forgive, or move on, but doesn't see that as a relevant choice for herself:  her pain is too deep, too all consuming, and she must have her revenge. 

 

Her sadistic enjoyment of it is both a bonus and a reinforcer--and she wouldn't see it necessarily as sadism.  It's justice.  Others just don't understand because they are out to get her, or don't understand her pain.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Mari

[Jean]

I liked Cora's story until they ruined it in that barf worthy episode of Zelena's conception back story. Surprise, surprise, let these writers have any toy for too long and they destroy it. Up until that point her story didn't feel like a "victimization" story.

 

Once's villains just aren't compelling because they have no goal.  And because the "villains" have no goal, the "heroes" also have no goal and purpose. It's all some petty personal soapy squabble, which is all fine and good if you're writing a soap opera and like that stuff but I feel like it could be so much more. S1 didn't feel like a soap opera. Everything that has come after has and bad soap at that. Rumple had a goal and it was a personal one but it took on a global scale.  Whole kingdoms and realms were affected, over the span of centuries, all due to his machinations.  Now he's reduced to swapping knives to deceive his wife. Snow and Charming were fighting for their kingdom or George's kingdom. There were alliances to be made like with Cinderella's prince.

 

They made Cora's goal a petty dumb thing when before I liked that she was just after power. I mean there was a good story there. How a peasant woman gained power using her sexual wiles and intellect and the price she had to pay for that. But no, in their effort to make Eva and Snow look as bad if not worse than Cora and Woegina, they ruined Cora. You can have the personal stuff in the context of a bigger picture but they made it all personal. Cora obsessing over Eva who wasn't interesting and had no goal in life it seemed beyond marrying Leopold, made Cora look pathetic.

 

Pan had all the foundations of something big and far reaching going on with the Home Office, anti-magic and all that stuff and somehow it turned into a family drama with the Henry and Rumple connection. Which would be fine if they had played up that family drama but we didn't even get that. So what's the point? Same with Zelena. There's potential for some power games and struggles and world building going on and all they want to do is write a story about family members slapping each other silly over some guy (which is really what it all comes down to) and the Woegina victimization fanfiction.

 

I guess I keep wanting them to be a poor man's Game of Thrones when really they are just a poor man's Twilight.

[KingOfHearts]

In Regina's case, she lives in extreme denial. She knows deep down she's not the victim, and that's why she plays her victimization to the balcony. It's a case of "the lady doth protest too much". It's a lie to defend herself from her own conscience, and really to stop herself from breaking down under all the guilt a normal person would feel from doing such horrendous acts for so many years.

She accepted her role as a villain at the end of The Evil Queen. Earlier in the episode she said Snow was evil and she was the good person, but at the end she said, "The queen is dead, long live the Evil Queen". She's called herself a villain on more than one occasion, with Going Home being one example. She chooses to be evil, not because she wants a happy ending, but because she's insecure. She can get everything she wants, and yet still be unhappy and do bad things. Even if she had Henry with all the Charmings gone, Robin all hers and everyone under her feet, she still wouldn't change.

 

Regina knows better because she has been exposed to the light many, many times - mostly by the people she persecutes. (*cough* Snow *cough*) She was a good person once, too. She is constantly around kind people who would save her life in a heartbeat, so she really has no excuse. It's not like evil is all she knows. If the writers didn't go out of their way to drag her back down over and over again, she'd probably be redeemed at this point.

 

 

Once's villains just aren't compelling because they have no goal.

 

I agree with your entire post, @Jean. S1 Regina/Rumple were great because they had clear goals, and they planned them out meticulously. Cora was a mastermind who knew exactly how to get what she wanted, and she didn't let anyone get in her way, which is why she's my favorite villain on the show. Pan had the makings of a powerful one, as you said, but it didn't go as far as it should have. Zelena had so much potential that I could go over in deep detail (I have in some posts in the past), but she was only there for the marketing, so they kept her two-dimensional and killed her.

Edited August 8, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

I'm not sure what was the point of making that Villain featurette on the S3 DVD.  It was basically just a clip show re-telling the stories of the "villains", while asking the cast and crew to describe what happened.  Though this show really looks better when you only watch clips of it.

 

Eddy basically revealed how they came up with Zelena.  Because they were curious about how Regina always claim everyone had wronged her, but what if someone was jealous of Regina?  What an interesting avenue to explore... not.

 

Overall, I think they've done a reasonably decent job of redeeming Hook thus far, but the writers' comments about him on this featurette struck me even more than the ones said about Regina and Rumple (maybe I'm just too used to them).

 

One staff writer said the first glimpse we see that Hook is a hero is when he turned his ship around.  So deciding you didn't want to selfishly only save yourself and let an entire town die makes you a hero now?  Why didn't he just throw in the bean down main street, and jump in and everyone else would jump in after him?  That would at least have been less selfish than sailing away with it.  Deciding not to run away while everyone else perishes when you could have saved them and yourself doesn't make you a hero... it makes you a normal person with a conscience.

 

And then the other staff writer went, "At the end of the day [Hook] is a hero, he's just bad at admitting it to himself."  So that's Hook's biggest problem... admitting to himself that he's actually a hero?  He just "slipped" a few months before with Ariel.  Shouldn't he need to rack up a few more heroic deeds before he's even in that "I *just* can't admit I'm a hero" territory?

Edited August 9, 2014 by Camera One