The Villains of Once Upon a Time

[Faemonic]

Not to play the role of mod here... but I think maybe the conversation is veering away from villains and going more towards gender roles/sexism on the show? I don't have too much to add to the current conversation, but it's interesting to read nonetheless, so maybe we should start a separate thread for it?

I can't think of a clever title for a Gender and Sexism in OUaT thread, though it could be useful to discuss something like Charming's attitude towards people of gender and how he fulfills his own role.

But what I think fits well enough in this thread is how much sexism influences the definition of villainy in-show, or out-of-show to the viewers. (Or how much the villainy influences the sexism.)

I mean, Rumple's been just the worst this season. Aside from hatting the fairies, what's his motivation even now that Baelfire's dead? Is it post-traumatic stress from being subject to somebody like Zelena who controlled him with his dagger, that he wants so badly not to have the dagger weakness anymore? (I meant that sentence to be more general villainy commentary than a gender dynamic thing, but wow, if Archie's trained in the strict Freudian analysis then I think Rumple might actually benefit from a few sessions.)

[kili]

I mean, Rumple's been just the worst this season. Aside from hatting the fairies, what's his motivation even now that Baelfire's dead?

 

I wonder if this is Rumple's version of Operation Mongoose? (Operation Scorched Earth?) Instead of getting the author to write his happy ending, he's going to go to all ends to ensure his own happy ending. He finally found his son after 300 years, reached detente with him and got an "I Love You Papa" and then he permanently lost his son. Even sacrificing himself did not get him his happy ending (it kind of got him enslaved - partly because his son had so much faith in him he did something phenomally stupid).

 

So, why should he bother trying to be the good guy? Why should he bother sacrificing anything at all? Why not just take what he wants? Why not make sure he is immortal and uncontrollable? Maybe then he can protect himself and the ones he loves. If karma is going to mess with him, he's going to make sure he is beyond karma's reach. He's going to have his cake and eat it too. He will have no weaknesses.

[Camera One]

I get why Rumple wants to take Belle with him and leave Storybrooke, but I'm not sure about Henry.  Does he suddenly care about him because I've never seen it.  He went to Neverland to help find Henry more for Bae's sake than Henry's.  He was plotting to kill the kid like 5 minutes before.  He had a whole scene with him that was deleted and a total of two snippets.

 

 

I don't think he'd need deep feelings to want Henry. Bae's dead. Henry's all Rumple has left of him and since he reconciled with Bae, that would be important. It's not about affection so much as posession of the one thing Bae left in the world. (Not that affection couldn't grow.) If he leaves Henry behind, there's always going to be that nagging what if and the possibility he'll regret it--like he does letting Bae go.

 

 

This is another example of something which *should* have had some sort of build-up but got absolutely zero, so it makes no sense.  I guess we could just assume he wants Henry because he is all that's left of Bae, but I mean, has Rumple thought about his long departed son even once in the last few weeks?  Who knows.  We don't even know if he thought about Belle when he made his plan to hat Emma, much less Bae.  The writing is basically for the "fun" of watching Rumple back to his evil ways.  They will go back and "humanize" him again when it's convenient to the plot.  I mean, Jane Espensen tweeted a response to someone that she thinks there is still a strong possibility that Rumple will fulfil the promise he made to Bae at the graveside.  Yeah, whatever...

Edited December 4, 2014 by Camera One

[jhlipton]

Rumpel could get away with killing or attempting to kill a powerless, contrite Milah; a powerless Regina; a powerless, contrite Tamara; a powerless, contrite Zelena; and a clueless, trusting Emma without coming off to me as misogynistic 

 

There have been 3 women of color on this show that I can think of: Cinderella's fairy godmother, Tamara and Rapunzel and Rumpel has murdered two of them. ("Magic has a price" except when you use it to slaughter another magical being, I guess.)  OUaT definitely has problems with racism -- with Mulan being the only person of color to cover multiple episodes and live -- much more than it does with sexism.  

[Faemonic]

There have been 3 women of color on this show that I can think of: Cinderella's fairy godmother, Tamara and Rapunzel and Rumpel has murdered two of them. ("Magic has a price" except when you use it to slaughter another magical being, I guess.) OUaT definitely has problems with racism -- with Mulan being the only person of color to cover multiple episodes and live -- much more than it does with sexism.

Oh, totally. But do we really want to see Adam and Eddie's version of The Ramayana or The Tale of Genji?

This Sunday on Once Upon a Time, Doctor Facilier struggles with his abandonment issues!

Edited December 4, 2014 by Faemonic

[KingOfHearts]

There was also Lancelot and Gus... who were both murdered by villains?

[Rumsy4]

There was a semi-recent Indian movie with a neat twist on the Ramayana. But I agree--the writers getting into Indian mythology might be a nightmare of offensiveness. However, A&E really need to step up their game in proper PoC representation. What they did with Regina enslaving Sidney, the only recurring black character, in the mirror, and him asking for her to release him, only for a white character to get him out, was so offensive! And then they turn around and act as though what Regina did was just a minor misstep. This kind of writing is extremely problematic.

[Camera One]

I find it interesting that only Emma found out Regina enslaved Sidney in the mirror again, and she hardly reacted or seemed to care.  How would Henry react?  I really don't think he will ever find out.  Heck, Regina even admitted that she plotted to kill Marion and Emma hardly blinked.  Why have Regina reveal it if there was going to be a total non-reaction?

[Faemonic]

 

How would Henry react?

"You're not a villain. You're my mom." (Actually, she can be both...)

Heck, Regina even admitted that she plotted to kill Marion and Emma hardly blinked.  Why have Regina reveal it if there was going to be a total non-reaction?

Emma was written really unlike herself that episode, though. Whatever mind turned Emma into that probably wasn't thinking that Regina's Reveal was any big deal...or even a slightly bad thing.

[Rumsy4]

I know, right? It seemed like a test of Emma's character actually--to see if she was capable of forgiving Regina even after she confessed to the worst of her crimes. Because you know, refusing to forgive someone of attempted murder and slavery, is worse than those crimes.

[KingOfHearts]

 

Not to play the role of mod here... but I think maybe the conversation is veering away from villains and going more towards gender roles/sexism on the show? I don't have too much to add to the current conversation, but it's interesting to read nonetheless, so maybe we should start a separate thread for it?

I've made a new thread for this discussion - Social Issues in Storybrooke!

[ShadowFacts]

Speaking of villains and race and gender, how about a male villain of any color, who is not Rumple?  Hook was billed as a villain but he isn't, King George was villainous but now MIA, we have had a parade of female villains, how about they bring in Jafar?  Or any male baddie.  There's a balance issue here. 

[daxx]

I suspect it reflects the general power balance shown in the Enchanted Forest, most of those in power were women.

[Curio]

Someone in another thread mentioned they should bring in Dr. Facilier, which I'd totally be on board with. He's a genuinely scary guy and deals with shadows, so that could possibly tie in with all the shadows they dealt with in Neverland.

[Jean]

I think it's just easier for A&E to write female villains as the victims and give them a sob story which is their bread and butter. It is kind of disturbing if you think about it too much but I don't want to place any real life implications on these 2 bozos just from a silly show.

 

The only 2 baddies that they haven't stamped "victim" on are Pan, and Jafar over on Wonderland both males as the main ones. The minor ones too that aren't given the sobby treatment are also male in King George and Keith/Sheriff. Or if we count Eva, then I guess there's a non victim villain for the female side.

 

I'd like to see some of the greek mythology actually. There's a whole cast of characters there that can all be villains. They half-assed Medusa but they brought up Poseidon last episode.

[Shanna Marie]

After rewatching this week's episode, I'm not sure I'd call Rumple a misogynist or even a misanthropist. Actual hating requires a higher level of caring than I think he's capable of. Mostly, I think it comes down to the fact that he's a selfish bastard and doesn't care about anyone else but himself. In his view of the world, below himself are a few levels.

 

There are his possessions, the people he claims to care about. He doesn't want bad things to happen to them, but that's mostly because it would make him unhappy, and woe to anyone who crosses them or even gives the slightest hint of taking them away from him. He doesn't seem to put much thought into what they want or need. Like in the latest episode, he wants to save Belle and Henry from the destruction of the town following the spell, but he totally disregards the fact that what Belle wants is to come up with the counterspell that will save the whole town. He also doesn't care that Belle would be appalled at all the things he's doing. He's too focused on getting what he wants, and he just assumes that will include Belle. What Belle wants or what would make her happy isn't of the slightest concern to him. These people can very quickly become enemies if they want to get away from him.This list is very small. At the moment, it includes Belle and Henry. It used to include Bae/Neal and Milah and maybe Cora.

 

Below that are tools and pawns -- the people who are useful to him. Once he's done with them, they either become enemies or non-entities. He doesn't want anything bad to happen to them that would affect his plans, so in that respect you could say he cares, but they can be easily discarded, especially if they can be easily replaced, and he doesn't care what the cost to them is in carrying out his plans. That included Regina when he needed her to cast the curse and currently includes Hook. He might stop someone under the spell from killing Hook, but only because he still has a use for Hook and wants to kill him himself when the time comes.

 

Then there are his enemies, where he seems to be surprisingly wimpy. He'll lash out and kill helpless people and seems to enjoy hurting people, but he hasn't been very effective at destroying the people he really hates, in spite of being so powerful. Regina's still breathing and Hook is still around after centuries. It seems that when it comes down to the people who actually stand up to him, he tries to get others to do the dirty work or comes up with elaborate schemes that have a chance to fail (though a lot of that comes down to whether or not his enemy is in the opening credits).

 

And then there's everyone else, and there he just doesn't give a damn. He doesn't necessarily want anything bad to happen to them, but he doesn't care what happens to them as long as he gets what he wants. They could live happily or all die, and he's good either way. If it takes destroying a whole town to achieve his goals, he's okay with that and won't feel a pang of guilt, but it's not like he sets out to deliberately destroy a whole town because the destruction makes him happy or because he hates them all.

 

I think in a way that makes him even worse than a misanthropist.

[Camera One]

he hasn't been very effective at destroying the people he really hates, in spite of being so powerful. Regina's still breathing and Hook is still around after centuries. It seems that when it comes down to the people who actually stand up to him, he tries to get others to do the dirty work or comes up with elaborate schemes that have a chance to fail (though a lot of that comes down to whether or not his enemy is in the opening credits).

 

If those two weren't series regulars, they would be swimming with the fishes along with Tamara.

[Faemonic]

 

I think it's just easier for A&E to write female villains as the victims and give them a sob story which is their bread and butter. It is kind of disturbing if you think about it too much but I don't want to place any real life implications on these 2 bozos just from a silly show.

Cora's story was unfortunately lazy. I liked her better in The Miller's Daughter when she was full-blooded and feisty, not mean, and just making the best of a bad situation in a pretty honest way. At that point, they wrote Rumple's sob story as more sob-filled than Cora's, so I wouldn't class it as A&E putting the Woe in Women.

 

The only 2 baddies that they haven't stamped "victim" on are Pan, and Jafar over on Wonderland both males as the main ones. The minor ones too that aren't given the sobby treatment are also male in King George and Keith/Sheriff. Or if we count Eva, then I guess there's a non victim villain for the female side.

Jafar had an understandable story, too, and I like that his dad was a bit of a jerk but not a total and complete jerk.

 

I'd like to see some of the greek mythology actually. There's a whole cast of characters there that can all be villains. They half-assed Medusa but they brought up Poseidon last episode.

Percy Jackson would fit right into Once Upon A Time, and the villains were guys. Well, the bullies of Percy were girls. The master mind was

Luke Castellan

and the master of mastermind was

Kronos

. Unfortunately, Fox might still have the rights to that franchise so that it can't be featured on Once? I don't know network politics.

[KingOfHearts]

Jafar was an epic villain with an awesome backstory. His sob story made Zelena and Regina look like ungrateful brats. Naveen Andrews has a very strong stage presence too.

[Jean]

At that point, they wrote Rumple's sob story as more sob-filled than Cora's, so I wouldn't class it as A&E putting the Woe in Women.

But the bottom line is Cora did become a full fledged victim in the end, by that life-ruining evil lineage no less. Just because up to a certain point in the story she wasn't a victim doesn't mean that's not A&E's m.o. Point is she eventually fell into that category same as the others.

That's like claiming A&E doesn't think or write Woegina as a victim because up until Daniel's story she wasn't one. Well she's one now and the biggest one of them all to boot. Or they didn't give Ingrid a sob story up until 4x07 so she isn't one and a million other characters had more of a sob story at 4x06.

Jafar had an understandable story, too, and I like that his dad was a bit of a jerk but not a total and complete jerk.

Yes but it wasn't played like "Look at this poor baby victim! Feel his pain and weep for him! Why is the universe so unjustly cruel to him. He deserves so much happiness." A&E are not subtle at all. There's a clear difference when they simply put a story onscreen vs. when they are desperately trying to get the audience to feel a certain way.

As an example, just look at Snow. Her backstory is just as tragic as anyone else's and never once has that "victim" status translated onscreen. I've never gotten that "Look at poor Snow and how sad her life is." Instead we get Snow the murderer, Snow the happiness destroyer, Snow the bratty and selfish kid who ruined others' lives repeated over and over and over.

Jafar got a crappy childhood backstory yes. But they never tried to use it as a righteous justification for his villainy. He remained a villain to the end, not a misunderstood victim. He was punished and Alice, Will, Cyrus etc. weren't villainized when they were trying to defeat him.

[ShadowFacts]

 

Jafar had an understandable story, too, and I like that his dad was a bit of a jerk but not a total and complete jerk.

 

If I'm remembering correctly, his father was more than a bit of a jerk, he actually drowned him (he thought) and had him dumped like garbage, but Jafar survived.  The drowning scene was wrenching. 

 

 

Jafar got a crappy childhood backstory yes. But they never tried to use it as a righteous justification for his villainy. He remained a villain to the end, not a misunderstood victim. He was punished and Alice, Will, Cyrus etc. weren't villainized when they were trying to defeat him.

Exactly, this is how Wonderland nailed the villainy, and did not assassinate the characters of others to serve the villains. 

[Faemonic]

If I'm remembering correctly, his father was more than a bit of a jerk, he actually drowned him (he thought) and had him dumped like garbage, but Jafar survived.  The drowning scene was wrenching. 

Okay, he was a horrible jerk when he was younger. What caught me was, as the elderly Sultan said, "I have learned the error of my ways. But I'm still waiting for you (Jafar) to learn anything!" And I thought, "Uhh...if you learned the error of your ways then why not say sorry to the person whose life you started just to ruin and dismantle his current motivation??" But, at some point, of course, Jafar's evil might have become quite out of proportion to whatever the Sultan could or even should fix.

 

Mostly, though, the Sultan was affable to both Cyrus and Alice's father. He just wasn't going to bend to someone who puts him in prison, kills his favored son and heir, and forces him to break rocks every day. That's what I mean by that he wasn't a total jerk--but I would retract the murdering bit of being a jerk, that was extremely jerk--but it wasn't the only mode that the sultan was in all the time. It's merely the mode that Jafar had seen and suffered as a helpless child.

 

So, the dynamic between them was very interesting, because the Sultan could be sympathetic without a sob story. At least, The Sultan himself wasn't sobbing.

 

(Also going to pull Screwball Ninja's list of redemption models: http://screwballninja.tumblr.com/post/94072020691/redemption-song-this-essay-is-going-to-be-a

 

1. There is no redemption, only the time before your sin and your inevitable painful doom.

2. You can be redeemed by making it up to the specific person you've wronged.

3. You can be redeemed by being generally good and nice to people other than the ones you've wronged. 

4. You can be redeemed by a giant grandstanding gesture of self-sacrifice.

5. You can be redeemed by being tortured.

6. Divine inspiration sets off the path to redemption by doing 2, 3, or 4.

 

I'd say The Sultan came off as a mix of 3 and 5, had potential for 4, but ended up as 1.)

[ShadowFacts]

I agree with your conclusion, Faemonic, and that the elder Sultan was mostly sympathetic without self-pity.  The dynamic between he and Jafar was complicated and well done, I thought, unlike the unholy mess that is Regina/Cora/Snow. 

[Mathius]

Yeah, the Sultan was in a tough situation: on the one hand, he was making the same error as before in making his love for Jafar conditional, only the reverse morality now (he'll only love him if he acts good and merciful). On the other hand, if he had given Jafar unconditional love, it would be positive reinforcement for his horrific crimes...plus Jafar would likely just kill him anyway as he did when he cast the love spell on him.

And I agree that Wonderland handled their villains, Anastasia and Jafar, much better than Once handles Regina and Rumple. Ana's redemption was everything Regina's was not (that she was never too evil to start with, unlike Regina, certainly helps), while Jafar (whose evil was on Regina and Rumple's level) was allowed to be treated as irredeemable despite his sob story, never treated as a victim in the present day at all.

[YaddaYadda]

Wasn't Jane E. completely in charge of Wonderland though while A&E stuck with Once?  That might explain certain things.

[Serena]

Jane is kind of one of the biggest Regina and Rumple apologists, though.

[jhlipton]

Speaking of villains and race and gender, how about a male villain of any color, who is not Rumple? 

 

But how would he fit with the Evil Cleavage?  I guess he could be their roadie.

 

Someone in another thread mentioned they should bring in Dr. Facilier, which I'd totally be on board with. He's a genuinely scary guy and deals with shadows, so that could possibly tie in with all the shadows they dealt with in Neverland.

 

That might be intriguing, for sure.

 

If those two weren't series regulars, they would be swimming with the fishes along with Tamara.

 

I was going to say she was taking a dirt nap, but I don't believe she was buried (who would have done that for her), so I guess she's just coyote-chow.

[KingOfHearts]

Mommy Cora worked better than Daddy Pan because she was so much more relevant to the main plot. Her relationship with Regina (and Snow) wasn't shoehorned in just to up the stakes. Her actions and presence heavily influenced present day events. She had a firmer grip on her daughter than Pan had with Rumple. Overall her family connection was one of her bigger benefits. "The Controlling Mother" is just more relatable to audiences than Pan the Con Man.

 

(The fact she was already in S1 in plots separate from S2's really helped the continuity.)

Edited December 9, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[TheGreenKnight]

I think Ingrid and Pan are my favorite villains overall. Cora had a lot of potential, but she didn't really *do* anything before they killed her. It makes sense from the characters' point of view to kill her as soon as possible because she wasn't the type to play around, but still it was anticlimactic after the whole first half of season 2 had built her up. Of all the villains, I actually would've liked to have seen Ingrid live after the end of her plotline, even if she just went to live in Arendelle with the others. Zelena I was mixed on, although I don't mind that she died. I just liked the idea of Regina having a family member to interact with that wasn't Snow or Charming.

[Jean]

Cora was the beginning of the end of Once as we knew it. Because of her we got the worst storylines ever and it hasn't stopped. Not content with that, they turned her into a pathetic victim. Given that, Pan reigns as the best Once villain, besides S1/S2 Rumple. And the culmination of his arc gave us Going Home. Hard to argue with that vs Snow's Dark Heart.

I loved Ingrid but I don't know if she should get the straight villain label. Not because she got her redemption but because she wasn't really Storybrook's antagonist. Nor did I think she served as an antagonist to Elsa, Anna or Emma. I can't explain it very well but she just has a different feel to her from the rest.

[Camera One]

Mommy Cora worked better than Daddy Pan because she was so much more relevant to the main plot. Her relationship with Regina (and Snow) wasn't shoehorned in just to up the stakes.

 

I thought Cora's hatred for Snow through Ava was pretty much shoe-horned in with "The Queen Is Dead".  

[KingOfHearts]

 

I thought Cora's hatred for Snow through Ava was pretty much shoe-horned in with "The Queen Is Dead".

 

I never thought Cora hated Snow. I believe she was envious that she was much closer to royal material than her own daughter, and that Ava had a better mother-daughter relationship. Snow was on the wrong side of a war, basically. She was a pawn in Cora's schemes. Would she kill Snow in a red hot second? Yes, but it was because she wanted to remove an heir and replace her with Regina. It didn't seem to me that she had specific disdain for Snow herself.

 

Now with Ava, that was pretty much shoehorned in to show the White and Mills family feud had been going on for generations. Though, I thought Cora's funeral speech was a great villain moment.

Edited December 10, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

I didn't think Cora hated Snow either.  I just meant that whole over-the-top vendetta thing with Ava started with "The Queen is Dead".

[Mathius]

Wasn't Jane E. completely in charge of Wonderland though while A&E stuck with Once? That might explain certain things.

No, she, A&E and another guy (Zack Estrin) shared power on it.

Mommy Cora worked better than Daddy Pan because she was so much more relevant to the main plot. Her relationship with Regina (and Snow) wasn't shoehorned in just to up the stakes. Her actions and presence heavily influenced present day events. She had a firmer grip on her daughter than Pan had with Rumple. Overall her family connection was one of her bigger benefits. "The Controlling Mother" is just more relatable to audiences than Pan the Con Man.

(The fact she was already in S1 in plots separate from S2's really helped the continuity.)

I actually agree with you (though I should point out that "Pan the Con Man" not being as relatable to audiences is a GOOD thing...I give my pity to whoever CAN relate to him), Cora's role in the family connections and overall plot was done better. My issue is with her actual character, her actual villainy...I felt it could have been a lot better than it was, and without Barbara Hershey to portray her, she would have fallen almost as flat as Zelena. Almost.

Cora had a lot of potential, but she didn't really *do* anything before they killed her. It makes sense from the characters' point of view to kill her as soon as possible because she wasn't the type to play around, but still it was anticlimactic after the whole first half of season 2 had built her up.

This was my other big issue with her, aside from her effectiveness relying too much on overpowered magic like shapeshifting....her understandable motivation was to get back into her daughter's life and then, once that was accomplished, she very abruptly picked up "become the new Dark One" as a motive, with little rhyme or reason beyond "she's obsessed with power." It's like if Rumple went on his hat quest immediately after reuniting with Neal, rather than have the proper lead-in of losing Neal and then being enslaved because of the dagger, which would naturally lead to him wanting to cleave himself from it. Edited December 10, 2014 by Mathius

[kili]

In an EW article chock full of spoilers so I won't link it here (check the spoilers thread), Eddie says the following non-spoilly thing about Rumple: Rumple likes to think that the ends justify the means. He’s willing to do things to get what he wants, but most people won’t. In his mind, that doesn’t make him evil. He’s not cruel. He doesn’t destroy people’s lives for no reason. It’s usually because they owe him.

 

That's pretty interesting. Does Eddie not see him as cruel or is it just how Rumple perceives himself?

 

Take the Mute Maid. She certainly didn't owe Rumple anything, but I guess that Rumple did have a reason in his own mind to kill her (he feared that she would somehow reveal his secret about the dagger - maybe he shouldn't talk about that in front of peope, then). Okay, so maybe he feels justified, but the manner in which he killed her was cruel. He comes back with blood in his teeth. Surely, that wasn't necessary. Nor was it necessary to turn the carter into a pig. Or to give Gaston the Rose to Belle to cut the stem off of. Or to beat up Whale. Or to try to hat Emma.

 

And I've seen a fair number of people argue  that Hook got his heart taken because he was blackmailing Rumple so he kind of deserves it. Rumple took out Hook's heart because Ingrid told him he needed the heart of somebody who knew him before he became the Dark One. I think Hook could have been the Storybrooke version of Ghandi or the Dali Lama and Rumple would still have taken his heart for the curse....he wouldn't have thought twice about it. He wants to cast that curse...sorry Mr. Exclusive Ingredient.

 

Rumple is torturing Hook about the heart because Hook was prepared to risk his life to expose what Rumple was up to. At that point, Rumple's own blackmailing was no longer working so he took the offensive position of taking the heart early and decided to get some cruelty in during the meanwhile.

 

Rumple may not see himself as cruel or evil, but he is being delusional.

[Faemonic]

 Rumple may not see himself as cruel or evil, but he is being delusional.

Rumple's dropped some "ends justify the means" like stuff. See how ineffectively he trauma-counsels Snow White after Cora's death.

 

Belle should introduce him to Alan Moore's Watchmen, if she isn't a snob about books with a lot of pictures. Moral within that comic book:

The ends don't justify the means because there are no ends.

For Season 4, though, I don't get Rumple's motivation at all. The first thing I fanwank is that he's got trauma from being under control by someone else wielding the dagger, but even if I try to see that, all I get is Rumple being a jerk for the sake of being a jerk. Lying to Belle. Planning to kidnap Henry. Planned on hatting Emma, seriously, Mr. Gold, what the what?? When Captain Hook, who tortured Jiminy Cricket, is being the voice of conscience even heartless...look at your life! Think about your choices!

 

Gold gloating about hatting Emma jumped the shark almost as high as Leopold and Regina missing incest by thismuch, and Regina using light magic and True Love's Kiss without a heart (why am I still watching this show again??)

[YaddaYadda]

Rumple may not see himself as cruel or evil, but he is being delusional.

 

 

A thought occurred to me regarding Hook/Rumple and what Rumple is doing.  When Hook got his hook back, he basically told Rumple he was willing to take him down with him and Rumple brushed that off saying that Rumple knew Hook better than he knew himself.  I think this might happen and shows just how deluded Rumple truly is when it comes to people around him.

 

He underestimates everyone because he has magic and they don't.  

 

I like that Hook isn't cowering.  He snarks back to the point where Rumple actually threatens to take his tongue, drags his feet on these tasks he's supposed to be doing, 

 

When all is said and done, i wonder how those two will co-exist in the same town.  

[Serena]

Rumple has reached the point of no-return, as far as redemption goes. But, I mean, so did Regina, and we know how that ended...

[Shanna Marie]

I think Hook could have been the Storybrooke version of Ghandi or the Dali Lama and Rumple would still have taken his heart for the curse....he wouldn't have thought twice about it. He wants to cast that curse...sorry Mr. Exclusive Ingredient.

That's what's so silly about the blackmail plot. It ended up meaning nothing because Rumple would have taken the heart anyway. Hook could truly have been his oldest and dearest friend, and Rumple would have felt justified in using his heart. He just might have regretted it slightly and might not have tortured him, though he still might have sent him to hat the fairies and round up Henry as a way of keeping his own hands clean.

 

I've had a thought about Rumple's motivations -- to a large extent it comes down to power. He wants no one to have even the potential of having power over him, but I think the real root of the issue is fear. He's still that coward he was and having power is his way of dealing with the fear. If he's all-powerful, he thinks that he won't have to be afraid anymore because there will be nothing that can hurt him. And that's possibly the real reason he hates Hook so much. It's not really about "stealing" his wife. It's because in that initial confrontation Rumple was afraid of Hook, and no matter how powerful Rumple becomes, Hook refuses to show fear toward him. That's what Rumple can never forgive, that there still exists someone he once feared and that no matter what he's done since then to gain power, this person doesn't fear him.

[The Cake is a Pie]

 

Hook could truly have been his oldest and dearest friend, and Rumple would have felt justified in using his heart.

 

It's an interesting thing to consider, what if Neal were still alive and Hook wasn't around. Then he would need Neal's heart. Would Rumple go that far?

[Jean]

I don't know if A&E are just delusional or if they learned to be PC after they got attacked last time for saying Rumple's only looking out for his own interests.

 

Onscreen I think Rumple is pretty self-aware. That's always been what set him apart from the black hole. He told Emma the truth about himself, even if he was using the truth for manipulation, it was still the truth. When Emma brought up that mariage to Belle thing, he straight up told her Belle married him despite knowing that he will always pick power over everything. Now I don't konw if that assessment will hold true and I do think it's a bit off. It's true in the sense that Belle is a dumb ass that always went back to him no matter what. But I don't think Belle married him with the full knowledge that he will always pick power. She married him thinking he's changed and wants to be a good guy.

 

 

Planned on hatting Emma

To be fair, he didn't exactly planned it. Emma went to him and asked for his help which he took advantage of. Which is pretty much his m.o. I will agree that the gloating was out of character. Even the Milah thing was off.

[kili]

But I don't think Belle married him with the full knowledge that he will always pick power.

 

His very proposal was him promising that he was picking her over power. That is why the symbolism of giving her the dagger is so important. Up until just before, he was being controlled by Zelena using the dagger against his will. Rumple giving Belle the dagger meant that he was giving her all the power in the relationship, trusting her with it because he knew that she would not abuse it. He is essentially promising "to obey" Belle while telling her that he trusts her so much, that is why he's willing to do it.

 

He even pretends it is true by cajoling her into using the dagger to make him "tell the truth" or as an alibi for murder - faking her into thinking she holds the power while he is at her mercy.

 

Belle believes all of this, so she did not marry him knowing he will pick power over her despite what Rumple claims. Rumple just believes these things because they help him sleep at night. Belle would have married him without the dagger (she tried to not take it), but his very proposal duped her into believing that he was picking her over power. 

[Faemonic]

I've had a thought about Rumple's motivations -- to a large extent it comes down to power. He wants no one to have even the potential of having power over him, but I think the real root of the issue is fear. He's still that coward he was and having power is his way of dealing with the fear. If he's all-powerful, he thinks that he won't have to be afraid anymore because there will be nothing that can hurt him. And that's possibly the real reason he hates Hook so much. It's not really about "stealing" his wife. It's because in that initial confrontation Rumple was afraid of Hook, and no matter how powerful Rumple becomes, Hook refuses to show fear toward him. That's what Rumple can never forgive, that there still exists someone he once feared and that no matter what he's done since then to gain power, this person doesn't fear him.

I love that interpretation. The pirate captain of indominable courage is one thing I'm so glad they kept from the source material, and I totally see now how that could rub Rumple really wrong when it's like... that's just Killian being Killian, Rumpy! Don't take it personally. It's probably a medical condition like an adrenal gland thing or a ventricle overgrown and eating up the fear part of his amygdala.

It's an interesting thing to consider, what if Neal were still alive and Hook wasn't around. Then he would need Neal's heart. Would Rumple go that far?

I want to say definitely not, but after Manhattan, Rumple did seem to pretty much just ignore Bae in favor of...not even Belle, but Lacey. So...

[Mathius]

I've had a thought about Rumple's motivations -- to a large extent it comes down to power. He wants no one to have even the potential of having power over him, but I think the real root of the issue is fear. He's still that coward he was and having power is his way of dealing with the fear. If he's all-powerful, he thinks that he won't have to be afraid anymore because there will be nothing that can hurt him. And that's possibly the real reason he hates Hook so much. It's not really about "stealing" his wife. It's because in that initial confrontation Rumple was afraid of Hook, and no matter how powerful Rumple becomes, Hook refuses to show fear toward him. That's what Rumple can never forgive, that there still exists someone he once feared and that no matter what he's done since then to gain power, this person doesn't fear him.

Exactly this. It's a twist on Hook since in the original story, the crocodile that took his hand was the only thing he DID fear. But in this show, they changed the Hook vs. crocodile dynamic to be more of an Ahab vs. Moby Dick one, with the captain boldly pursuing the beast that de-limbed him rather than the beast pursuing him with him fleeing it. As such, it remains a big point that Hook refuses to fear Rumple, even when Rumple literally holds his life in his hand.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Mathius

[Amerilla]

He wants no one to have even the potential of having power over him, but I think the real root of the issue is fear.

 

Yes. In fact, Rumpel is the only character who has ever shown an excessive amount of fear as part of his basic personality. Other characters have shown situational fear when faced with the fearsome, which they mostly push through to triumph. For him, it's part of his character DNA, and it is clearly, unambiguously, the only reason he wants to hold on to power at this point - for the illusion of safety.

 

 

 

It's because in that initial confrontation Rumple was afraid of Hook, and no matter how powerful Rumple becomes, Hook refuses to show fear toward him. That's what Rumple can never forgive, that there still exists someone he once feared and that no matter what he's done since then to gain power, this person doesn't fear him.

 

Hook isn't unique in not showing fear towards Rumpel. Other than in the Pilot, when people literally quaked when they saw him, Rumpel has mostly been treated (both in Storybrooke and the EF) as something along the lines of a multi-cat litter box: unpleasant, smelly, potentially toxic...but at the end of the day, a necessary evil. Fear hasn't stopped the masses from lining up at his door to make deals in the with this problem or that issue. 

 

 

 

It's a twist on Hook since in the original story, the crocodile that took his hand was the only thing he DID fear. But in this show, they changed the Hook vs. crocodile dynamic to be more of an Ahab vs. Moby Dick one, with the captain boldly pursuing the beast that de-limbed him rather than the beast pursuing him with him fleeing it.

 

Good analogy! Of course, both Barrie's Hook and Ahab end up in the same place: dead. It's just that Barrie's Hook runs away from the Crocodile-as-Death and Ahab runs towards Whale-as-Death.

 

The eternal question is, as always, how much thought the Master Storytellers give to this stuff. Barrie and Melville were emphatically writing allegories. I don't know the same can be said of A&E. They underwrite stories in a way that enhances ambiguity and (probably unintentionally) allows each member of the audience to see what they want to see. Those who see Hook as sort of a cheeky quasi-hero can see his fearlessness before Rumpel as a sign of strength or courage; those who see him as kind of a wanker can point out that this is why he's running around with one hand and his heart in Rumpel's man-bag, to no great gain to himself and to the danger of everyone around him. That he'll inevitably (#nospoilers!) be saved is largely by the intervention of our old friend, the Contrivance Fairy.

Edited December 13, 2014 by Amerilla

[KingOfHearts]

 

Hook isn't unique in not showing fear towards Rumpel.

This is one thing I love about Emma - she's the only person other than Hook (and in S1) to not give a flip about Rumple's power. She's not scared of him at all, and Rumple actually respects that. They have some similarities that I wish could be explored on the show, but their relationship has been sidelined since 2B. They would have been perfect together in Neverland.

Edited December 13, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Mari]

I guess I always thought some of it was Rumple's own hatred and contempt for himself.

 

Hook is the only person living that has seen human, ordinary Rumple at what Rumple himself considers his worst.  He's like a constant reminder to Rumple that Rumple is a cowardly man who could not make his wife happy and was held in contempt by everyone he knew, except his son--who also left him.

 

Every time he sees Hook, Rumple's reminded who he used to be.  He'd hate that.  Plus, Hook could tell people.  What if people found out how much scorn he deserves?  What a "loser" he used to be?

 

Not that he doesn't have plenty of reason to dislike Hook, but I honestly think some of it is continually being reminded of and confronted with reminders of who Rumple used to be.  (Kind of like seeing that person from high school who'd remember in vivid detail your most awkward, humiliating things.  Even if you like them, it can be uncomfortable.  If you dislike them  . .. )

[YaddaYadda]

I never even thought that part of Rumple's hatred could be that Hook knew him pre-Dark One.  But then, it was actually brought up on the show with the current heart dilemma.  That's pretty interesting.  I think Rumple still resents the hell out of Hook for tricking him over that magic bean.  I wonder if this sort of renewed hatred has to do with Hook still being alive and Neal being six feet under.

 

I've often wondered how Rumple felt seeing his old enemy being in love with Emma.  He has been snarky about it, but i wonder if he sees it as some sort of betrayal to Neal's memory or something (even though Neal has been a non factor in Emma's life for a very, very long time).  But then again, no one is betraying Neal more than Rumple himself.  I just sort of feel that there's a whole unresolved situation with bringing back the Dark One so that he can help him get back to Henry and then basically dying because of it (and because he was too stupid to live after that).

[Faemonic]

I've often wondered how Rumple felt seeing his old enemy being in love with Emma.  He has been snarky about it, but i wonder if he sees it as some sort of betrayal to Neal's memory or something (even though Neal has been a non factor in Emma's life for a very, very long time).  But then again, no one is betraying Neal more than Rumple himself.

Now you've got me wondering how Rumple feels about seeing Emma being in love with his old enemy. Too true, no one is betraying Neal more than Rumple himself, but everyone's got psychological protections around their own faults, which is why pop psychology usually makes it out that the things other people do that we complain about most are indicators of what sort of wrong thing we frequently take to, ourselves, without noticing it. (Of course, this is when it's not simply a natural reaction to being hurt by the hurtful actions of another person, and it's too easy to turn the tables and try to call out the complainer.)

 

The sad thing is, it would fit the pattern that Rumple's been showing, if he disregarded the wildly different circumstances and characters and set out to punish Emma for leaving Bae just as he punished Milah for leaving Bae. That Rumple's attempt to take power was more literal in Emma's case than Milah's doesn't make it less side-eye worthy.

[KingOfHearts]

 

I've often wondered how Rumple felt seeing his old enemy being in love with Emma.  He has been snarky about it, but i wonder if he sees it as some sort of betrayal to Neal's memory or something (even though Neal has been a non factor in Emma's life for a very, very long time).  But then again, no one is betraying Neal more than Rumple himself.

 

I actually kind of doubt he feels betrayed. He doesn't care about Emma, even if she's his grandson's mother. I don't even believe he cared about Neal's life or what he did or who he was with. Rumple was more concerned with getting back his son and making good on his promise. He wanted Bae's approval because he felt guilty about being a coward. Now if Hook outright stole Emma while Neal was still dating her, then Rumple would gladly go rip Hook's throat out, thinking he would be doing his son a favor. (Plus get his revenge...) But since Swanfire broke up, per Neal's choice I might add, and since Neal is dead, it really doesn't matter to Rumple.

 

There's his enemies and his "possessions" (Belle and Henry). Emma isn't in either category, therefore she's irrelevant to him.

Edited December 14, 2014 by KingOfHearts