The Villains of Once Upon a Time

[Amerilla]

Agreed. Spotted Octopus must happen.

[legaleagle53]

Just so it doesn't become the new Swan Queen.   ;-)

[Amerilla]

What would a Cruella-Belle ship be called? Crubella? Spotted Bookworm?

[Shanna Marie]

I think I'm going to start promoting Tentacle Queen. Then I can have online hissy fits and claim that people are both homophobic and racist if they don't support my crack ship. And we could see what the really crazy Swan Queeners do -- is it really Emma that they want for Regina, or is it just any relationship that's going to give her lots of screen time? Would giving Regina a storyline with Ursula make them forget about Emma or make them explode with rage? Let's find out! I mean, they have a less toxic past than Regina and Emma do, even with that little escapade of Regina impersonating Ursula and Ursula warning her about it. I'm sure that really meant that Regina wants Ursula so badly that she actually wanted to be her. The subtext is all over the place!

[SilverShadow]

Taking discussion of Tentacle Queen VS Swan Queen to relationships thread.

[Bashful82]

Awesome video. And uncanny....

[KAOS Agent]

From the Writers thread:

 

I'm not necessarily arguing that either Walter White or Rumpelstiltskin should have been/be redeemed. I know plenty of people prefer unredeemed "villains." But I think there are probably a lot of people like me, who don't really enjoy stories where there is no light at the end of the tunnel, no chance to salvage the good person from the ashes of the bad.

 

I think the problem with a comparison of Walter White and Rumpelstiltskin is that we knew from the very beginning that Walter White would not get a happy ending. He was a dead man walking from the premiere of the show. The only question was how he would go out. I don't actually have a problem with a terrible person getting redemption, but because Rumpel has stolen the lives and happiness from countless victims, there is nothing that he can do that earns him the right to walk off into the sunset and live happily ever after. Rumpel's act of sacrifice in "Going Home" worked as a final act of redemption because he died. He did something good and saved a lot of people from endless misery, but that one act does not atone for all of the people he killed. He can't walk off with a new wife and live a wonderful life after brutally murdering his first wife. It doesn't work that way. There was justice in Rumpel dying for all that it was an act of goodness and bravery.

 

Darth Vader was brought up elsewhere and since that sacrifice lines up almost exactly with Rumpel's, I submit that had Vader not died, the leaders of the rebellion would not have been all bygones, dude. Vader would not have been left to run around free after literally blowing up an entire planet.  Vader earned some sort of absolution only in death and even then it was limited to the sadness Luke may have felt that he was right and there had been a grain of goodness in him and what a shame that Vader had chosen the dark path. It's more of a what might have been/if only situation. That's basically what I feel like Rumpel's character can have. He may have that thread of good in him and make a change, but I don't care how reformed he becomes, I could not ever be on board with him escaping justice for his atrocities. He can't have a happily ever after when he robbed so many others of theirs.

Edited February 21, 2015 by KAOS Agent

[Shanna Marie]

I was going to move that villain redemption discussion from the Writers thread over here, too, so here goes ...

 

I think to some extent that fictional characters are held to a different standard than real people. We like to see bad people in fiction see the error of their ways and be redeemed in fiction because it gives us hope. It lets us feel like we stand a chance with our petty sins if people who have done truly awful things can get their acts together and be forgiven, and maybe it even gives us hope for the petty tyrants in our lives that they may someday see the light, feel bad about the way they treated us, and then change their ways. In the real world, while there are criminals who have had religious conversions and really changed their ways, I don't know that anyone on an Idi Amin level (probably as close to a real-world comparison to Regina as I can think of) has ever really changed that much. Someone who can do those kinds of things and think it's absolutely the right thing to do is highly unlikely to have a "what was I thinking?" moment about anything other than getting stopped or maybe that final straw on the camel's back action that ruined everything. And if someone who'd done things on that level did have a big turnaround, they probably wouldn't be able to live with the guilt of what they'd done. If someone like Regina really had seen the error of her ways, she'd likely go mad. How could she live with having murdered her father over what turned out to be a bit of petty, misguided revenge?

 

But there's also a huge difference between "redemption" and "happy ending." A redeemed villain doesn't necessarily deserve a happy ending. In fact, someone who has done bad things and has been redeemed would be less likely to expect a happy ending because part of being redeemed is recognizing the wrong they've done and feeling some guilt about it. I know someone who works in a prison ministry, and he has great stories about inmates who had a religious experience and changed their lives, and part of that is them really accepting that what they did was wrong and feeling bad for having done it so they have no desire to do it again. But these people don't just get out of jail because they've changed. Instead, their attitude bout being in prison changes. They start making the most of the time and use it as an opportunity. They study and try to improve themselves so they'll have legitimate job skills when they get out, and they try to help other inmates. They may eventually have a "happy ending" (for whatever that looks like to them) when/if they get out of prison, but they still have to deal with the consequences of their evil actions.

 

This show seems to skip that justice part of the redemption process, and they also seem reluctant to change the character traits that made Regina and Rumple bad in the first place. Regina is a narcissist with a strong dose of paranoia. She views everything through the filter of how it affects her and suspects that everything that happens has been deliberately targeted at her. That's how she can see Snow White living a happy life as a deliberate crime against her, how she can feel like she's doing absolutely the right thing in murdering her father to cast the curse so she can get her happy ending, and how she can see Emma saving Marian as being a deliberate act to ruin her life. She's almost incapable of empathy and barely seems to recognize that other people have wants and feelings -- and this hasn't changed even when she's stopped killing people and supposedly been redeemed. She didn't even seem to think that telling Henry to stay away because she was sad about Robin would hurt Henry until Henry was standing on her doorstep and demanding that she, his mother, acknowledge his existence and remember that this was his home, too. This is not a redemption because she hasn't changed the attitudes or personality flaws that caused her to be evil in the first place. Giving someone like her a happy ending because she's changed just outlines the unfairness of the world and is the opposite of hope. Yeah, there are people like her in the real world who get everything they want because they demand it and other people give in rather than deal with them, but that just makes it all the more satisfying when we see a fictional person like that get a comeuppance. Seeing that kind of person be rewarded is irritating.

 

As for Rumple, he, too, hasn't changed his attitude at all. He sees everyone else in the universe as a pawn to give him what he wants. Even if that changes, he's done enough bad stuff that I can't imagine him getting a happy ending. The best I could imagine for him is ending up sad and alone, but no longer doing evil. One place where that's been done in a somewhat satisfying way is with the Hound in the Song of Ice and Fire books (they don't seem to have done the same thing in the TV version) -- he's basically an awful person who has done bad things, and he does have a bit of a woobie backstory. Then he first realizes that he's serving the wrong people, and he does some good things for bad reasons, helping a couple of the main characters. We don't really get into his head, but you get the impression he's starting to change his attitudes.

Then he's badly injured and left for dead, and later there's a hint that he ends up living out his life at peace in a monastery.

So there's a suggestion of redemption and some kind of peace, but about the best you could hope for in a person who has done the things he's done.

[KingOfHearts]

Since she's coming back,

let's talk about Zelena.

 

I wish her backstory was as bad as she played it out to be. I really liked the idea of someone who looked at Woegina's life and said, "Girl, you don't know what a hard life is, do you?" During Witch Hunt it looked like she'd be that character. She was a decent Big Bad all the way up to the episode we found out about her story, then it was a very steep downhill. A vaguely abusive father isn't enough to justify Zelena's jealousy. Why couldn't she have been more of an outcast? Born green, raised by munchkins, and rejected by society for her knack for dark magic? I feel like even Regina's angry was more valid, and that's saying something.

 

Giving Zelena overpowered magic was so contrived it hurt. Why not give her superior street-smarts instead? Things that she could have learned from being on the grungy side? I can understand if she was more skilled with magic, or knew more about it, but to just say it's better by nature is a cop-out. There's no way to explain it unless Prince Jonathan is actually part of a line of powerful sorcerers. Zelena never did anything intelligent or crafty. It was all just handed to her. At the end of the day, her schemes were full of crap.

 

Sibling rivalry would have been something to explore if they had actually bothered to give her and Regina any relevance to each other. Their blood relation changed absolutely nothing. Regina couldn't care less that they were sisters, only that Rumple thought she was better with magic. Then before they could even start any bond between them, they killed the witch off. All the pieces were there, but they chose to let it sit there and die.

 

The time spell made little to no sense. First off, how did she even know about the Cora/Leopold/Eva thing? Did the show even confirmed that it was her plan to kill Snow's mother besides what the heroes speculated? How was Zelena even sure that killing her would have even done the trick? I thought her big deal was casting Rumple's curse, getting back at Regina, and getting an imp's affections? Why didn't she just manipulate someone into casting the Dark Curse, like Rumple for instance? Couldn't she have just become mayor of Storybrooke with every citizen bowing to her will including her sister?

 

To me Zelena was more of a plot device than an actual character. They wanted a new threat to push everyone back to Storybrooke, they needed an iconic villain, they needed someone who could be related to Regina, and they needed someone to activate a time spell so they could have their Back to the Future special. What we got was a very shallow, green mannequin who wasn't thought out at all.

[Shanna Marie]

First off, how did she even know about the Cora/Leopold/Eva thing?

Didn't she see that in the Magical iPad of Oz -- what the Wizard showed her before she went to the Enchanted Forest to find Regina? Though all I recall her seeing was being abandoned and then seeing Regina, but I suppose if she could see that, she could have rewound a bit and found the story.

 

The real oddball thing about her was that she was still jealous about Regina casting the curse even when Rumple explained it to her, that it wasn't about who was better at magic, but about needing someone to play patsy and kill the thing she loved most. This was not a thing to be jealous of, not a role she would want to put herself in. She was the one getting to live in Rumple's palace and she was getting trained by him. But she was flipping out about him also training Regina so he could set her up to kill the thing she loved most in order for him to get what he wanted. Her problem wasn't that she wasn't getting what she wanted, but that someone else was also getting something she wanted -- and really, only what she thought she wanted, since Rumple was encouraging Regina's hatred and misery so she'd eventually cast the curse. She and Regina were definitely related. They both not only wanted everything for themselves, but couldn't bear anyone else having anything, and with the very existence of the person they hated being unbearable to them.

[YaddaYadda]

To me Zelena was more of a plot device than an actual character. They wanted a new threat to push everyone back to Storybrooke, they needed an iconic villain, they needed someone who could be related to Regina, and they needed someone to activate a time spell so they could have their Back to the Future special. What we got was a very shallow, green mannequin who wasn't thought out at all.

 

This.

 

She was also a plot device to give more sympathy to Regina (crazy mother, boyfriend's heart crushed into dust right in front of her eyes, manipulated by Rumple blah blah blah).  At the end of the day, Zelena had no leg to stand on when it came to that pity party she was throwing herself.  Yes, Cora left her, but she was clearly better off without her.  She had a loving adoptive mother from what little we saw and her father was a bit of a douche, he was scared of magic even though he lived in fucking Oz.  

 

The only thing that makes sense with Zelena is that she was already unhinged before she went to see the Wizard and found out about Regina.  

[Amerilla]

I think the problem with a comparison of Walter White and Rumpelstiltskin is that we knew from the very beginning that Walter White would not get a happy ending. He was a dead man walking from the premiere of the show.

 

Depends on how you're defining "happy ending."

 

It was clear that he wasn't going to spend his final years frolicking through a dewy meadow with Sky and the kids. But (tagging for those who might still be in mid-binge-watch)

I would argue that he did get as "happy ending" as was possible in his situation:

 

In the end, Walt met all his basic goals. He got his revenge on Gretchen and Blandy McBlanderson - the people he blamed for his original failure - by terrorizing them and forcing them to do his bidding under fear of death. He got to play "family savior" and provide for them by getting money to Walt Junior over Junior's very clear wishes, by giving Skyler the information she needed to leverage a plea with the Feds, and giving Marie closure by giving up the location of Hank's body. He freed Jesse. He killed Lydia and the Nasty Neo-Nazis.

 

Cancer didn't kill him. The police never arrested him. He died by a shot inflicted by his own gun, in the arms of his True Love - a lab. Compared to being eaten to death by cancer in a prison hospital bed or in an isolated cabin, forgotten and alone, it was a pretty happy ending.

 

 

I think to some extent that fictional characters are held to a different standard than real people. We like to see bad people in fiction see the error of their ways and be redeemed in fiction because it gives us hope. It lets us feel like we stand a chance with our petty sins if people who have done truly awful things can get their acts together and be forgiven, and maybe it even gives us hope for the petty tyrants in our lives that they may someday see the light, feel bad about the way they treated us, and then change their ways.

 

Yes, plus, well-written "dark" characters encourage us to ponder the human condition in general. I find that - especially because they are fictional - I'm less interested in what these characters do than why they do it.

 

I read a quote from a scifi writer named Ben Bova the other day that really struck me: "There are no villains cackling and rubbing their hands in glee as they contemplate their evil deeds. There are only people with problems, struggling to solve them. Just as your protagonist is struggling to solve her problems, your antagonist is struggling to solve his. It’s all a matter of viewpoint."

 

I'm more interested in trying to figure out the viewpoints of characters like Rumpel than justifying or judging them. I'm more interested in what it is in Belle than makes her love him and want to save him than whether she "saves" him in the end. I don't care if his story resolves with him and Belle living together with 2.5 kids in a big house on the hill - I care why other characters would feel that was a better or worse resolution than, say, execution or jail.

 

Where I feel they've gone astray with Rumpel as a character in S4 is that they've stripped away a lot of the duality and introspection that made his actions worth contemplating in the past. Now he's more in the "cackling while rubbing his hands in glee as he contemplates his next evil deed" territory, which to trips off my Failed Character Alert.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Amerilla

[Camera One]

Well said, KingofHearts.

 

Didn't she see that in the Magical iPad of Oz -- what the Wizard showed her before she went to the Enchanted Forest to find Regina? Though all I recall her seeing was being abandoned and then seeing Regina, but I suppose if she could see that, she could have rewound a bit and found the story.

 

Which begs the question how did the Wizard know about it?  Where did he get the Magical iPad of Oz?  How did he gain the knowledge to work it?  How did he know BEFORE Zelena got to the Emerald City what her backstory was?  Why didn't Rumple get a Magical iPad?  How could Rumple not have known that Cora had a secret first child?  

 

Why would Zelena be jealous of Regina's things, if she could make it all out of magic, and a huge castle as well?  Did the writers all get amnesia after they wrote the scene where Zelena's mother was a loving person?  How did she learn the ingredients of this Time Travel Spell which was against the Rules of Magic, even acknowledged by Cora on the Wonderland spinoff?  Why didn't Zelena gather Charming's courage, get Regina's heart, etc. etc. etc. when they were in the Enchanted Forest?  How did she know Rumple spinning a gold brain would work when she needed Regina's real heart?  How could she determine that Snow's baby would work but Aurora's baby wouldn't?  How did she know that Snow et al would all return to the Enchanted Forest, and have Aurora/Philip be on the lookout for them?  

 

The entire thing was so poorly thought out beyond, "What if the Wicked Witch was green with envy?" and "What if someone was actually jealous of Regina?"

[KingOfHearts]

 

Why would Zelena be jealous of Regina's things, if she could make it all out of magic, and a huge castle as well?

If Zelena had to change her entire past to be happy, then the only way that could make sense is if she had a traumatic childhood she wanted erased from her mind that scarred her for life. But the show did not show us that very well. There are many other fathers who made for poor parents of other characters, and Zelena's was no worse than any of them.

 

Something that could have helped Zelena to be more intimidating would be to allow her to actually kill somebody. Neal does not count if he knew it was a trick and did it anyway. It would have been so satisfying if she had used the dagger on Rumple to get him to give up Neal for a new dark curse.

Edited February 21, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

Something that could have helped Zelena to be more intimidating would be to allow her to actually kill somebody. Neal does not count if he knew it was a trick and did it anyway. It would have been so satisfying if she had used the dagger on Rumple to get him to give up Neal for a new dark curse.

 

I don't think that would have helped with nothing else changing.  She was already unbeatable, until she was not.  It would be just as frustrating (For me, it was no fun to watch because the protagonists got no wins and never one upped her on anything, and it would have been even more maddening had she murdered people) and overall, the arc would have been just as unconvincing without the proper motivation behind her idiotic plan, which was never crystallized and was a complete moot point.

[KAOS Agent]

Depends on how you're defining "happy ending."

It was clear that Walter wasn't going to spend his final years frolicking through a dewy meadow with Sky and the kids. But...spoilers]

 

If you look at Rumpel's "death", he got a happy ending with his sacrifice. No it was not living happily ever after with Belle and Bae, but he got revenge on his father, overcame his cowardice, proved that he didn't need magic to give him courage and saved his family from a miserable existence and/or horrible death. That's a pretty happy ending for Rumpel. 

Where I feel they've gone astray with Rumpel as a character in S4 is that they've stripped away a lot of the duality and introspection that made his actions worth contemplating in the past. Now he's more in the "cackling while rubbing his hands in glee as he contemplates his next evil deed" territory, which to trips off my Failed Character Alert.

 

But I think that they had already screwed up with Rumpel in this respect. The initial set up of Rumpel spending all that time working to get back to his son did give a bit of humanity to this man. Even his sick actions of turning a man into a snail and crushing him were meant to show him protecting his son. However, he murdered his wife for having the temerity to not love him and actually leaving a situation that made her unhappy. Even then, that was personal and you can try to justify the woobie Rumpel was just upset and acted badly. The problem comes when they had random people talk about how he'd changed their father into a pig and implied that that was quite commonplace. He was a petty asshole who destroyed lives, not because it needed to happen for his plan to get Bae back to work, but because he is a terrible person. It showed he didn't care about anything other than himself. Belle can look at Rumpel and see good bits in him because she romanticizes him and all she really saw was his love for his son. She wasn't shown him wandering around screwing over random people because he could. And when she does see it, she seems to ignore it.

 

Now, of course, he's on the path to world domination where he can further destroy the lives of countless people because he feels like it. Any character development is out the window because honestly it makes no sense. He'd previously had some motive for his actions with love at its core. Now he has the love of a good woman and he's like meh and I have no idea why. 

 

I think the same can be said of the writers screwing up Regina in her Evil Queen mode. When Regina was shown targeting Snow White and those helping her, there was an understanding for what she was doing, crazy as it was. But once they had Regina terrorizing and killing and destroying lives just because, they removed that humanity from her. As stupid as it was, I can understand her misplaced vendetta against Snow. I can't understand killing just for fun and they make it even worse because Lana plays Regina as so gleeful when she's committing these atrocities. It just makes her a horrible person with no humanity. Once someone starts killing indiscriminately for no reason and revels in her enjoyment of it, I lose all sympathy because I have no way to even begin to understand it.

Edited February 21, 2015 by KAOS Agent

[Camera One]

Now, of course, he's on the path to world domination where he can further destroy the lives of countless people because he feels like it. Any character development is out the window because honestly it makes no sense.

 

It was so dumb and idiotic when Ingrid said, "I KNOW what you want.... world domination".  I know some people enjoyed Rumple returning to his "roots", but as Amerilla said, they removed all the duality in 4A, despite having him supposedly happily married.  There is now no fear that he might lose all that?  The whole Zelena PTSD excuse might work, if they actually addressed it during the season instead of tacking it on in "Heroes and Villains".  

 

Basically, the longer these writers have the characters, the more they ruin them.  As KAOS Agent said, Regina's despicable actions at least made sense until they decided to have her gleefully commit genocide.  And then they expect us to not throw up when they force Snow to say idiotic statements like, "I'm not all good and you're not all bad?" and Emma to proclaim that no one in the world understands her like Regina does, after seeing the woman gleefully fire-balling her mother?  We've all said this a million times, but I seriously don't get what levels of delusions A&E and the rest of the "team" can ascend to.

 

And now the whole Find-the-Author's focus is not Regina making up for the bad she has done.  It's about being misunderstood by the Author.  Now she's on the heroes' side and the Author is STILL not giving her a happy ending.  When A&E highlights the whole, "What is a hero, what is a villain" theme, they're implying that it's just labels.  Except it's not "just" labels.  It's literally the ACTIONS that Regina and Rumple have committed which make it impossible to just go bygones.  As the Snow Queen was dying, Emma goes, "But you deserve a happy ending too."  In a way, it was sweet that she was sad since she thought of her as foster mother for awhile, but the woman was about to condemn her entire family and the entire town to death with that Shattered Sight spell.  

Edited February 21, 2015 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

Where I feel they've gone astray with Rumpel as a character in S4 is that they've stripped away a lot of the duality and introspection that made his actions worth contemplating in the past. Now he's more in the "cackling while rubbing his hands in glee as he contemplates his next evil deed" territory, which to trips off my Failed Character Alert.

Yeah, it used to seem to me as though there was a mournfulness about him, like he'd grown to hate what he had become and what he was doing, but he didn't feel he had a choice. You could almost believe that if it hadn't been for needing to find his son, he'd have been happy to let Belle break his curse, but he had to force himself to stop it because he had to put his son first. A lot of his actions leading up to the curse seemed random, but turned out to be part of a plan. But apparently they like the giggly imp too much and took him too far, so now he's just cackling with glee while contemplating his evil deeds.

 

I could kind of see him snapping and killing Milah in a fit of passion and then regretting it, but instead he's gloating about it. I could have understood the impulse to want to make sure no one could ever control him again after what Zelena did to him, but I don't think it played out that way. They made it more about world domination, and they made him enjoy it all too much.

 

Really, with Rumple it's a case of not being willing to do the obvious and logical thing. Rumple should have stayed dead. His story was at an end. Now there's really nothing to do with him, and they're in the tricky situation where he can never be entirely defeated (or else they lose the character), but he can't be allowed to win. He can't really be totally redeemed, but he also can't be trusted. He just has to hover in this gray area of quasi-villainy where he can't be killed and he can't be changed.

[Selina K]

I was talking to my husband who watches this show, but does not come to any boards, read any articles, is not super interested in spoilers and basically sits down once a week, watches the show, enjoys it for what it is, and then doesn't think about it much until the next week.  He mentioned to me the other day that he isn't really even looking forward to the show coming back on.  When I asked why, he said, "Regina is best when she is the evil queen, when she is a badass and owns it.  Rumple is best when he is either evil, or better maneuvering behind the scenes in ways you don't anticipate, when like in the first season you slowly realized it was all his design.  Emma is best when she is kicking evil's ass.  I don't care about any of the queens they're bringing on, and I haven't really felt the show has been good since Peter Pan, who was at least an interesting villain and a fun actor.  I didn't like what's her name, the Wicked Witch, and I liked the Frozen stuff but mostly because the Snow Queen actress was good.  It just all wound up not making a lot of sense.  And now this author thing is just stupid."  So then I had to ask if he is secretly reading the boards, because this pretty much sums up, I think, how a lot of us feel.  I thought it was an interesting perspective from a non-fandom person.  

 

Also thought it was interesting in how he focused on the villains in his pseudo-analysis, since I think he has correctly identified that the villains are the ones driving the action.  This is a problem, because it doesn't give the protagonists any active goals.  Instead, their goals are negative or represent inaction or a desire to return to a status quo.  There is no quest beyond 'beat the bad guy so I can take a nap.'  Ideally, I think the heroes would be trying to achieve something more meta, like 'break the curse' and the antagonists would be the ones who are trying to drive the status quo and get in their way to prevent the hero from achieving that end.

 

ETA: I know someone made a post about goals recently, but I cannot remember which thread it was on.  mea culpa for continuing on that idea without giving credit!

Edited February 22, 2015 by Selina K

[LizaD]

I'm always confused as hell that some writers always try their hardest to woobify villains. They seem to think complicated and layers mean "but they're just really a sad kitty that wants love." It'so bizarre considering that the reason villains got popular in the first place was because they're villains, not because they're a sad kitty! It would be like if chocolate was the best selling ice cream in your shop, you got rid of it to sell vanilla because chocolate was popular. How does that make any lick of sense?

I do think this is where the split between general audience vs. onliners come in. The general public is more what the hell? While the onliners embrace it because what they usually want for their fave characters is to be the "Mary Sue" or the stuff fanfiction is made of. To bad for the writers, the general public makes up the majority of their audience, not the ones that tweet at them every hour.

I'm not convinced that static characters can't be built for long term either. Change and growth doesn't automatically equal entertainment. As an example House managed to last 8 seasons with like half an inch of "growth" in all that time and he was the one leading the whole show. In an ensemble cast with built in major guest stars in the premise, it should be easy enough to do.

[Camera One]

I found Cora rather irritating, and didn't think she was all that.  I personally don't find it instantaneously enjoyable just because the villain is a murderer or "own" their evil or is a super scary individual.  With a villain like that, it's even more frustrating when the protagonists can't do a thing.  That is much more of a problem for me.  

 

I could buy why everyone would be scared of the Shattered Sight Curse, and I think they did a good job of creating an ominous atmosphere in the lead-up, even if the resulting episode was a joke and a half.

 

Even with Cora, there were zero consequences of her so-called reign of terror in Storybrooke in the long-term.  Johanna was a moot point within a few episodes.  No one ever mentions her.  Henry didn't even find out Cora threw her out the clock tower while Regina watched.  Even if the Blue Fairy had been killed by Pan, it's not a real consequence if everyone is over it a second later.  

 

So to me, I don't mind if the villains are not much of a threat.  I just want the "heroes" to be smart and be able to foil them at every turn before ultimately defeating them in a smart and fun way.  Instead, we get everyone standing around like doofuses for half a season, including the season finale, while someone else (Regina, Rumple, Anna, etc.) saves the day.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Camera One

[Souris]

But then they gave her the post death flashback of being impregnated and dumped, and made Eva the real villain for not letting her pass off the baby as Leopold's. So not even Cora escaped their woobification.

[KAOS Agent]

I watched an interview in a documentary once with a man who was part of a German Death Squad that murdered countless Jews in villages across Ukraine. Intellectually, he clearly knew what he had been a part of was wrong, but when asked why he did it, he talked about how as a child, a couple of Jewish men had stolen his family farm and went on and on about how evil these men were and so on. It was a very tragic story. When it was pointed out to him that the two men he talked about were a) from Germany not Ukraine and b) had absolutely nothing to do with an entire religion/ethnicity, he just kind of shrugged. You could pretty much see that he didn't care.  I saw a lot of Regina in this man. Child loses home/family, blames the wrong people (and is egged on in this by charismatic others), and kills them in revenge. Regina loses True Love, blames the wrong person, and tries to kill her and all associated with her in revenge (egged on by others). After years and years of life lessons, Regina makes a realization that maybe killing everyone isn't the best thing ever, but doesn't really feel at all bad about having done any of it. And only worries about it at all because of how something might affect her.

 

What hits me about how similar these two stories are is that I didn't feel an ounce of sympathy for the old guy. I mean, he doesn't cry pretty tears like Regina, so he's already screwed on that point, but honestly, I just looked in horror at this man who could recount really terrible tales about murdering people in cold blood and not see a drop of emotion or caring about it at all. When they asked him what he was thinking about when he pulled the trigger, he said his only thought was to make sure his aim was true. This guy walked away from it all with no consequences. He lived his life to its fullest and it made me angry. It's funny because I don't hate this guy. I don't even necessarily blame him for his actions sick as they were (well I do, but I understand his motivation), but I can't be anything but angry about how this person never met any form of justice. Having a real life example to compare Regina to makes it even harder for me to watch this show woobify and whitewash her actions so that she too can escape any real justice.

[Shanna Marie]

I have frequently thought about all those cases of death camp guards and the like who've been found living out their lives decades later in the US in comparison to Regina. Most of them seem to be in total denial, not showing remorse, so it seems like a fair comparison -- someone who seems to think that not killing anymore is enough. And, you know, there are people who think it's just being mean when they catch up with these people all this time later and want some kind of justice.

 

I'm having a hard time with the villains poll. I think there's the possibility that Cruella will be a hoot, but there's also a strong possibility that they'll ruin her by woobifying her with a sad backstory and then make her stupid and useless at the last second. I'm probably most intrigued by what will happen with Rumple because he can be an interesting character and I love his dynamic with Hook (I'd love to see those two actors working together in something else that's actually well-written because they're electric together even in this dreck), but I'm worried that they'll insist on "redeeming" him and get him back together with Belle, which will also ruin her. So there seems to be an equal chance with both characters for either good stuff or utter disaster. I may have to flip a coin.

[KingOfHearts]

 

Cora created her own issues and trouble by her impetuous and selfish actions (sleeping with the dude in the tavern after knowing him for 5 minutes) It was not as though Cora was trying to create a better life for Zelena by marrying Leopold. That was just going to be a side benefit. She always acted within her own interests and then tried to tack on Regina. Cora was always all about Cora, even when she tried to play the victim card.

If evil isn't born but made, we didn't see the making of it. Cora was a social climber looking to take advantage of noble men all the way back in the tavern. She was not just some naive girl looking for a handsome prince to love. What was done to her was wrong, but what was she attempted to do to Leopold was too. There was already corruption in her. There were no original good intentions like with Regina or Ingrid. Cora is more similar to Pan or Zelena, who were bratty from the start.

[LizaD]

Cora never quite had the same treatment as Zelena (if only I'd had my mother's love) and Ingrid (everyone is scared of me)

Not from lack of trying though. The writers' intent was clearly to justify and woobify Cora, even if not everyone bought their story. Usually there are 2 ways to justify a villain: a, the sob story and b, the good guys are just as bad and screwed the baddie over and is therefore repsonsible for their villainy. Cora got option b while Zelena and Ingrid got option a. Some get both and then some.

Really Pan stands alone in the evil and owns it category, not Cora. He got neither of those options. I suspect even if they bring back Pan, he won't be ruined like Cora was because the writers aren't interested in redeeming the Rump family on the backs of anyone.

I would argue that Ingrid wasn't even a villain. I think they were going for a "what Elsa would look like if not for Anna" thing. A liitle crazy and a lot of lost but not really villainous. Really Mitchell was harder on her character in terms of villainy than what actually showed up onscreen. Her body count is 1, by accident. I think Snow and Charming have a higher body count. Snow was also ready to let everyone die to save her precious Woegina so I don't consider that too far off from what Ingrid wanted, which was Emma and Elsa and screw everyone else.

[Camera One]

Snow was also ready to let everyone die to save her precious Woegina so I don't consider that too far off from what Ingrid wanted, which was Emma and Elsa and screw everyone else.

 

Snow did not create the situation to make that happen.  Which is worlds away from what Ingrid intended and initiated.

 

Ingrid also iced Marion, who would have died.  Of course, no one is supposed to care about her but still...

 

I liked your a and b methods.  A&E's patented formula.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Camera One

[LizaD]

Snow did create the situation and was the one in control. Woegina was captured and about to be executed and Snow's dumb ass saved her even though Woegina on death row was still promising revenge and death. It wasn't like she was conning Snow and pretending to be reformed.

If someone broke a mass murderer out of jail, they would be named accomplice which is what Snow was. It's not exactly the same as intending to kill masses of people yourself but knowingly freeing a person that has already killed masses of people and still intend on killing more? Yeah no breaks from me. Snow wasn't concerned about anybody's life in the forest.

[Camera One]

It's not exactly the same as intending to kill masses of people yourself but knowingly freeing a person that has already killed masses of people and still intend on killing more?

 

Neither situation is right, and this isn't a matter of giving a "break" to anyone.  Intending to kill masses of people yourself is a big difference from that other situation, in legal terms, and that action clearly makes that person a "villain".

 

I thought you were referring to the Season 2 finale, but I see now you are referring to "The Cricket Game".  Snow said specifically in that episode when she banished Regina that if she hurts anyone else in the kingdom again, she will be killed, which is still ridiculous, but the analogy of letting a random mass murderer out of jail doesn't quite work either.  Regina's mission was always to kill Snow and all the death she caused was directly related to that goal.  

Edited February 23, 2015 by Camera One

[LizaD]

 

that action clearly makes that person a "villain".

And freeing a mass murderer is an action that is villainous.  I can't think of a single "hero", outside of Once, that intentionally freed a villain who was vowing to wreak more havoc with her dying breath, go free and clear. Because that is not an action of a hero, but a villain. Usually it's other villains that free another villain.

 

 

banished Regina that if she hurts anyone else in the kingdom again, she will be killed

If anything that makes Snow a bigger moron. How exactly was she proposing to keep Woegina in check? Jail? No. Taking away her magic? Nope. She let Woegina swan off to go continue her reign of terror in her kingdom. What exactly in Woegina's execution speech made Snow think that she was going to all of a sudden stop her killing sprees? Meanwhile she and Charming thought they had a right to King George's kingdom. She hooked up with Cinderella to jail Rump for something much less than what Woegina did, as far as she knew. All Rump wanted was to keep the terms of his deal and that was deserving of magic-containing jail. Killing entire villages gives you a get out of execution card. Got it.

 

 

letting a random mass murderer out of jail doesn't quite work either.  Regina's mission was always to kill Snow and all the death she caused was directly related to that goal

Why does this matter? Woegina was racking up an impressive body count regardless of the reason and Snow let her go. Every single one of Woegina's attempt to get at Snow was never confined to just Snow, it was always something that took out other people and Snow knew this. See the village, see Graham and Ariel, see the curse.

 

If anything it makes Snow that much worse. The former just makes her a crappy ruler, the latter makes her a crappy person on top of a crappy ruler. She should've stood up for all those people that died protecting her worthless ass. Instead she protects their killer. The fact is Snow viewed them as collateral too, no different from how Woegina saw them. Snow not giving a damn about the hordes of people that died on her account is a move from the villain's book.

[Shanna Marie]

Snow is basically Eddard Stark with the Stupid Nobility -- yeah, you're clinging desperately to your honor and not wanting any blood on your hands, personally, but that comes around to being a vice when your nobility ends up getting a lot more people killed. Unfortunately, this show seems to think that this is a virtue, not a failing. Snow was right to free Regina. Snow was right to risk the entire town rather than let Regina get herself killed stopping the doomsday device that she created and was planning to use to destroy the whole town. Heroes don't kill people. But lots of people dying because of stupid nobility isn't a problem at all. As I've said before, this show may be sanitized for most of its violence and doesn't have nudity, but its morality makes Game of Thrones look like Sunday school in comparison.

 

I ended up going with Cruella in the villains poll because even if they screw it up, she'll be gone by the end of the season and we know on this show the odds of there being lasting consequences are really slim. With Rumple, we'll be stuck with the aftermath, so while in theory I like the potential of his storyline, I'm kind of dreading what they'll actually do with it.

[FurryFury]

I don't think the show ever really tried to woobify Cora. They did try to make Eva (and through her, Snow) less "white", though, that's true, but making Cora the kinda-sorta "victim" was just a side effect. They never truly implied she was a good person - just maybe a "true neutral" character in sucky, but not horrendous, circumstances.

 

Still, I find "Bleeding Through" a sucky retcon and I generally prefer to think that it didn't happen. I also don't really care about Villain!Cora. Now, flashback Young!Cora is a different story - they didn't quite feel like the same character to me, to be honest. I really feel like the whole insipid Greg/Tamara arc at the end of s2 should have been replaced by the more drawn-out climactic conclusion to "Cora in Storybrooke" arc. And really, Snow killing Cora was such an awesome, interesting idea by itself. It deserved to be the season finale (and maybe they'd forgo the "Dark heart" nonsense in the next season by forgetting about that).

[Mathius]

However to me it is a disservice to true story telling to make every villain misunderstood and truly loveable once you step over all the bodies and the carnage. The last true villain we had on the show was Cora. Pan, Zelena, and the Snow Queen have failed to reach her level of destruction simply because the writers gave Zelena and the Snow Queen sob stories where they were simply misguided in their attempts to be loved.

....So how the heck does that make PAN not a "true villain"? He had no sob story, owned his evil as much if not more than Cora, and was just as competent in how he operated even though for him it was more about scheming and psychological warfare than it was about a show of power, which was gradually draining from him so he had a valid excuse to hold back with it.

Really Pan stands alone in the evil and owns it category, not Cora. He got neither of those options. I suspect even if they bring back Pan, he won't be ruined like Cora was because the writers aren't interested in redeeming the Rump family on the backs of anyone.

This. And while Cora didn't self-victimize or woobify herself like her daughters did, she DID justify her evil. She was thoroughly convinced her abuse of Regina was for Regina's own good, and she flat-out was bothered by Snow calling her a wicked woman, protesting "I'm not wicked." Pan, as both a child and an adult, is the only one whose attitude was flat-out "Yep, I'm a selfish, sociopathic dick, it's who I am and always will be, and I'm cool with that."

Edited February 23, 2015 by Mathius

[FabulousTater]

Snow is basically Eddard Stark with the Stupid Nobility

 

Heh, I don't know, Shanna Marie, I feel like you just dissed Eddard Stark! Even with all his nobility Ned Stark would have never A) stopped Regina's execution because he felt bad for her and B) let Regina, the mass murderer who slaughtered a village because they don't like her, go free or stay alive. Not even Ned is that stupid or that bad of a ruler.

 

Snow is in her own world of sucky monarch. Regina is horrible person and ruler, no doubt, but Snow is self-absorbed and inept, which in combination makes the results  of her monarchy almost as bad as Regina's reign of terror. From the citizenry's POV one ruler went around killing them because they were crazy, and the other went around letting killers kill them because they didn't want to hurt the killers feelings.

Edited February 23, 2015 by FabulousTater

[Shanna Marie]

Even with all his nobility Ned Stark would have never A) stopped Regina's execution because he felt bad for her and B) let Regina, the mass murderer who slaughtered a village because they don't like her, go free or stay alive.

I don't know. He was awfully soft on Cersei. I mean, he found out that all her kids were actually fathered by her twin brother rather than her husband the king, and he believed that she'd already murdered (or arranged murders) to keep this fact from coming out, and what did he do? He warned her that he was going to tell the king, specifically because he felt bad about the idea of what would happen to her and her children, and he was naive enough to think that she was just going to take her children and go away quietly. Instead, she arranged the king's murder, Ned got executed, and an entire war started, with countless lives lost. That seems like Snow-level thinking (Snow White, not Jon Snow. I don't think even Jon Snow, who knows nothing, would be that dumb). True, Cersei hadn't yet ordered any massacres, but he knew she was sleeping with her brother and that she had a cruel streak, both of which would indicate that this wasn't a person who could be trusted to not respond in a crazy way. Whether he'd have been willing to execute Regina would have depended on the letter of the law or some small detail in the code of honor -- like, was it really a crime for her to slaughter villagers when she was the queen and technically they were actually committing treason by withholding information from her? And the fact that she was a woman really would have thrown him, I think.

 

At least that series showed that this kind of nobility was actually a kind of vice and had horrible consequences. I think we were supposed to applaud Snow letting Regina go as a sign of Snow's goodness rather than a case of "arrghh, you could have stopped this whole thing, right there!"

[FabulousTater]

True, Cersei hadn't yet ordered any massacres, but he knew she was sleeping with her brother and that she had a cruel streak, both of which would indicate that this wasn't a person who could be trusted to not respond in a crazy way.

But the lack of proof is the difference and it's an important difference between the shows. Regina isn't the same as Cersei in that situation. Ned suspected Cersei of all of that treachery, but had no concrete proof. He suspected and therefore felt that was strong enough to force her out behind the scenes, but no proof to bring her to actual justice. He had a note from Lyssa Arryn (who was crazy and actually lying) and then based on descriptions of other Baratheons, circumstantial indicators that Cersei's kids weren't Robert's (lending creedence to the Twincest rumors -- which was true, but again Ned had no proof).

 

Regina's situation presented Snow with concrete proof -- the mass grave of villagers that she had slaughtered, Snow's father's murder, and Regina holding Charming hostage and threatening to kill him if Snow didn't eat the cursed apple. Snow let Regina go even though Regina had clearly murdered people; Snow herself had seen the bodies and Regina had admitted to the killing and when faced with her own execution said she only regretting failing to kill Snow herself.

 

Ned OTOH was never faced with that situation (having the piles of bodies as proof) when it came to Cersei. In fact the closest case that Ned was faced with was when some villagers came to him telling him that The Mountain had slaughtered, raped and pillaged their lands, and in that case Ned sent knights out for The Mountain's head. Ned set a death sentence on the The Mountain and all those that committed the atrocities with him and sent knights to carry out the execution (and called Tywin Lannister to the floor to answer for his bannermen's atrocities). That's the difference. Snow and the whole kingdom knew Regina was a vicious killer, and yet she let her go with nothing but a slap on the hand and the words "Neener Neener Neener." Ya, Snow, that'll stop put a stop to Regina. 

 

I think the difference between Ned and Snow is that Ned believed in justice even if he had to swing the sword. Snow doesn't believe in justice especially if she has to swing the sword. And that's a difference that matters.

Edited February 23, 2015 by FabulousTater

[Shanna Marie]

I think the difference between Ned and Snow is that Ned believed in justice even if he had to swing the sword. Snow doesn't believe in justice especially if she has to swing the sword. And that's a difference that matters.

That is true. But I think that actually reinforces my point that all the other ickiness aside, Game of Thrones may be more moral than Once Upon a Time. Ned's failure to deal with Cersei was considered a flaw. It didn't keep him from being a good man, but it was a weakness that led to a war and many deaths, including his own. Snow's failure to deal with Regina -- in spite of all the concrete evidence she had of Regina's evil -- is seen by this show as a plus, as proof of how good she is. And yet she's the one apologizing to Regina and Regina feels ill-used by the heroes and the universe in general. She's thrown every bit of mercy Snow has shown her right back in her face and made her pay for it. Which is okay if she's still supposed to be a villain, but she's supposedly good now.

 

Snow's attitude toward Cora was the one time that she made sense in dealing with a villain.

 

On the idea of a villain who owns his/her villainy, I would love to see one without the sad backstory. Cora could have been that -- she had enough in her life to motivate her to want more, but her backstory wasn't that tragic -- but they now don't seem to see it that way. Pan was a creation of pure selfishness. I think most of the real-world villains today, like the corporate raiders who are happy to bankrupt stockholders, creditors and employees as long as they get their golden parachutes, or drug dealers who kill indiscriminately, are just evil because they're selfish and want stuff. They don't need to have had mean parents or some other kid who told the teacher they were beating someone up so they got the detention that sent their life on the wrong path.

[Faemonic]

On the idea of a villain who owns his/her villainy, I would love to see one without the sad backstory. Cora could have been that -- she had enough in her life to motivate her to want more, but her backstory wasn't that tragic -- but they now don't seem to see it that way.

 

Pan was a creation of pure selfishness. I think most of the real-world villains today, like the corporate raiders who are happy to bankrupt stockholders, creditors and employees as long as they get their golden parachutes, or drug dealers who kill indiscriminately, are just evil because they're selfish and want stuff. They don't need to have had mean parents or some other kid who told the teacher they were beating someone up so they got the detention that sent their life on the wrong path.

Owen could have worked because what Regina did to his dad was just evil. (We saw the skeleton! The skeleton!! What, were they all out of rooms in the asylum?) But, then, so...was...Gregowen...but...that might have only been because he was daring to get back at Regina, when Regina is sancrosanct. If what Gregowen was doing was bad because it was bad, and his dead dad explained the motivations without excusing the actions, then it might have worked. What a shame that Regina's just not allowed to have any counter-narrative for herself!

 

I think back at the TWoP forums someone said something like how refreshing Pan was. No real sob story, just a bastard coated bastard with bastard filling.

 

Cora, I think was much more sympathetic in The Miller's Daughter than she was in Bleeding Through, even though that latter was an effort to give her a sob story, and even though the former showed the seeds of evil (ambition and pride...which, in poverty, is actually kind of admirable. Beats self-pity, anyway, in my opinion.) (...I might not be the target audience demographic for this show.)

[FabulousTater]

That is true. But I think that actually reinforces my point that all the other ickiness aside, Game of Thrones may be more moral than Once Upon a Time. 

 

Oh, I totally agree. I wasn't trying to say that OUAT is more moral than GoT. I actually think Game of Thrones is pretty damn clear on what is right, what is wrong, and what falls into the "grey" category. OUAT is not, and most of the time right is wrong and wrong is right. OUAT, at best, has a totally bent morality.  In GoT, people do horrible things but they also don't pretend they aren't horrible. Even that treacherous viper Cersei knows Joffrey was a terrible monster and openly said as much to others. In GoT even the "evil villains" call a spade a spade.

 

My point was that while Ned's failing was his sense of honor over prudence and caution, I don't think that is Snow's problem. Ned's sense of honor led him to treat a person like Cersei, whom he suspected of being treacherous and dishonorable but with no concrete evidence, as if she would also act honorably in return. That sense of honor was his downfall and it cost him his life and others their lives. But even so, when previously confronted with known killers like The Mountain Ned knew to treat them with the severity that they deserved. He dealt with a known violent, vicious people like the threat they truly were. He didn't say, "Someone send a raven to The Mountain asking him if he'll please stop killing villagers because that would be really nice of him. If you put down your sword, Ser Clegane, I just know we can be friends." Which is essentially what Snow did with Regina.

 

Snow had more than mere suspicions of Regina's treachery. Snow knew she was evil and a killer. Hell, the whole damn kingdom knew. And yet she released Regina, no harm, no foul. So the way I see it, Snow's failing isn't nobility or because she's honorable, as is the case with Ned Stark. No, Snow's failing is just being....well, stupid. I don't think anyone outside of the writers room gets why Snow talks to Regina or pursues a friendship with her. The best "reason" I've ever seen someone come up with is that Snow has some sort of extremely dysfunctional abused child relationship with Regina and that's why Snow can't bring herself to do anything about Regina, despite the piles of dead bodies. But I don't consider that having a sense of nobility or honor. Again, I think it's just dumb. That's why I don't see Ned and Snow as having the same failings.

Edited February 24, 2015 by FabulousTater

[Faemonic]

The best "reason" I've ever seen someone come up with is that Snow has some extremely dysfunctional abused child relationship with Regina and that's why Snow can't bring herself to do anything about Regina, despite the piles of dead bodies. But I don't consider that having a sense of nobility or honor. Again, I think it's just dumb. That's why I don't see Ned and Snow as having the same failings with regards to their nemeses.

If Ned were The Mountain's stepson or foster son, or something...maybe Ned would pull a Snow? (He did confess to doing something wrong when he knew that he was right, just to save his family.) But nobody else would rally around him. Even if Dany hadn't grown a spine, Viserys was going to get his brain parboiled by somebody for being such a jerk, sob story be damned.

 

But then again, Game of Thrones is medieval historical fantasy. Once Upon A Time is a fairy tale...whatever that should mean about villainy.

 

There's something I want to throw in about Dungeons & Dragons alignments (chaotic good, lawful good, neutral, lawful evil, chaotic evil) where I read that "In this setting, good and evil aren't philosophical points..." but then I got a Dungeon Master who allowed a (good) cleric to make a deal that would kill people because "(You're forgetting) that 'good' Is relative." But at least the D&D manual had some guidelines about it.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Faemonic

[Shanna Marie]

The best "reason" I've ever seen someone come up with is that Snow has some sort of extremely dysfunctional abused child relationship with Regina and that's why Snow can't bring herself to do anything about Regina, despite the piles of dead bodies. But I don't consider that having a sense of nobility or honor.

We're not really talking about villains anymore, so I think I'm going to drag this to the long-lost Snow thread.

[FurryFury]

There's something I want to throw in about Dungeons & Dragons alignments (chaotic good, lawful good, neutral, lawful evil, chaotic evil) where I read that "In this setting, good and evil aren't philosophical points..." but then I got a Dungeon Master who allowed a (good) cleric to make a deal that would kill people because "(You're forgetting) that 'good' Is relative." But at least the D&D manual had some guidelines about it.

 

Alignment system is just shit, It doesn't agree with moral relativism at all, and different people understand it VERY differently. One of the multitude of reasons I was done with D&D years ago (I do play other P&P RPGs).

 

Cora, I think was much more sympathetic in The Miller's Daughter than she was in Bleeding Through, even though that latter was an effort to give her a sob story, and even though the former showed the seeds of evil (ambition and pride...which, in poverty, is actually kind of admirable. Beats self-pity, anyway, in my opinion.) (...I might not be the target audience demographic for this show.)

 

You and me both. And "The Miller's Daughter" was just a superior episode, in all the ways. Still my favorite in the show, and probably will stay this way.

[Faemonic]

Alignment system is just shit, It doesn't agree with moral relativism at all, and different people understand it VERY differently. One of the multitude of reasons I was done with D&D years ago (I do play other P&P RPGs).

 

The Virtues and Vices system of World of Darkness might be a better fit for this show, except instead of gaining back Willpower whenever they show either (though I guess that can work too: one willpower point back for acting on vices, but all willpower points gained back for acting on virtues) the villains gain audience interest? Maybe inverse of the willpower system, where there might be more audience interest gained for their acting on their vices than their virtues…at least, theoretically.

 

Rumple:

Virtue (Prudence)

Vice (Wrath or Sloth?)

 

Hook

Virtue (Fortitude)

Vice (Lust)

 

Regina

Virtue (…Justice? I might go more for Fortitude here.)

Vice (Envy)

[LizaD]

We're not really talking about villains anymore, so I think I'm going to drag this to the long-lost Snow thread

Well I consider Snow having some villainous tendencies and being culpable of some evil, does that count? Just about the only heroic thing she's ever done is kill Cora but then she turned into a sniveling coward right after.

Miller's Daughter in a bubble is likely one of the top episodes of the series. In context however, it sealed the deal on the screwed up morality of the show permanently. We got a hint of where it was heading in the fall 2A finale where A&E claimed the evil Charmings ditched poor Woegina but this one was the nail in the coffin. I think this episode was also where they lost their way with Rump right after. They didn't know what to do with him after this epsiode and still don't.

I looked up the show's producers/writers to see if anyone left in between S1 and S2 to indicate the complete tonal shift in how they frame the villains but I didn't see any. However, Samantha Thomas and Ian Goldberg left at the end of S2. And Christine Boylan and Robert Hull left end of S3. I'd like to think the S2 deserters left in protest over the woobification of villains and the S3 quitters left over the sanctification of Woegina.

I just want a villain whose goal doesn't involve getting someone to love them. Ingrid as poor man's version of Magneto would've been perfect. They even seemingly set it up onscreen but threw it out in favor of some dumb plan to make Emma and Elsa her sisters. Who with more than 2 brain cells to rub together thought that would be a better villain story than Magneto?

Or a villain like Ra's Al Ghul and his relationship with Batman. I thought S1 Gold and Emma had the potential to be in the same vein. Or a completely fun loving villain who just likes havoc, like Pan and Imp Rump were before they turned all dark and angsty.

[kili]

Cora, I think was much more sympathetic in The Miller's Daughter than she was in Bleeding Through, even though that latter was an effort to give her a sob story, and even though the former showed the seeds of evil (ambition and pride...which, in poverty, is actually kind of admirable. Beats self-pity, anyway, in my opinion.)

 

The glorious thing about Cora in "The Miller's Daughter" is that it showed how dedicated and wiley she was. She wasn't going to be content being the wife of  Dark One, she was going to be powerful in her own right. She turned down love with him for control of her own destiny. Best of all, she was able to beat Rumple at his own game. She out-swindlered the master-swindler. She totally out-manouvered him with the fine print and that doesn't happen very often. It made her a worthy opponent and dangerous. It made her interesting.

 

And in doing so, she protected her first born....or so we thought. Maybe she was in her own twisted way a mother of sorts.

 

Then they go and ret-con the entire event in "Bleeding Through". Suddenly, she already had a first-born that she had discarded so there was no jeopardy ever in the deal. Even her smart job of tricking Rumple into changing the deal was pointless - Regina was never in danger.  She'd tossed the first-born away, why not just tell him that and have him figure it out?  Are we supposed to go back and watch that and think that she is somehow protecting the baby she left in the woods to be taken by a tornado? That entire gamebit in "The Miller's Daughter" makes little sense, Cora's motivations become a mess and Rumple looks even stupider.

 

And it even destroys the "You would have been enough". Because, Cora threw away a baby when she had a heart, so she's kind of inherintly heartless.

 

They could have at least had Cora find a family or a bunch of dwarves to adopt Zelena (or left her on a young Friar Tuck's doorstep). Dumping her baby in the woods was pretty much leaving her to die. The tornado could still have swept Zelena away from her little house in the woods.

[Shanna Marie]

Owen could have worked because what Regina did to his dad was just evil. (We saw the skeleton! The skeleton!! What, were they all out of rooms in the asylum?) But, then, so...was...Gregowen...but...that might have only been because he was daring to get back at Regina, when Regina is sancrosanct. If what Gregowen was doing was bad because it was bad, and his dead dad explained the motivations without excusing the actions, then it might have worked.

I can't quite remember (probably because my mind has repressed that phase of the show for my own sanity's sake), but did Gregowen actually do anything bad, aside from hiding his identity and making furtive phone calls, up until nearly the end, when he tortured Regina, triggered the failsafe, and kidnapped Henry?

 

That whole storyline really pisses me off because if you really look at it, he was the victim. Regina ruined his life out of sheer selfishness and nastiness. Why did she even bother keeping his father once it was clear she wouldn't get to keep the boy? Would it have hurt her to let him go and find his son again? Owen couldn't get any kind of justice against her through normal means because the town was hidden once he left it and because of Regina's power and all the other magic stuff. It wasn't as though he could have called in the authorities to report that this was the woman who tried to kidnap him and killed his father 28 years ago. She was totally unrepentant about it. Didn't she even mock him a bit? And yet he was the villain. Maybe I'm bloodthirsty, but she kind of had that torture coming. It was about time she got some kind of payback from a victim.

 

Even with the failsafe, Regina was the one who created it. She was the one who got it out, planning to use it to destroy the whole town. She was the one who destroyed the entire crop of magic beans, aside from just a few for her own personal use, to prevent anyone else from being able to escape. But Greg was the villain for triggering the failsafe, Hook was awful for taking the last bean and clearing out after it was obvious these idiots weren't going to make a practical decision, and Regina was the hero for stopping the failsafe once it was clear that she'd be caught in her own trap and she'd be leaving Henry alone if everyone else was killed.

 

I'd be curious to know what their plan for Gregowen was before they abruptly ditched it all for Neverland. It just seems wrong that the villain who had a legitimate gripe, who really was a victim, who really had been wronged, got no sympathy at all from anyone and got a horrible death and was considered wrong for going through with what Regina started. And yet no one has said a word of criticism about Regina's role in all of it. That actually could have been an interesting plot, especially if they'd ditched the Tamara part of it (because she was lame) and if they'd really been willing to delve into the issue of the impact of magic on the world, and if all the characters had been allowed to react realistically to the situation. How should Henry really have reacted to the fact that before his mother adopted him, she'd attempted to kidnap another kid and had killed his father when the kid resisted? What would he think about someone having grown up alone because of Regina's actions (in addition to his birth mother)?

[LizaD]

 

She wasn't going to be content being the wife of  Dark One, she was going to be powerful in her own right. She turned down love with him for control of her own destiny. Best of all, she was able to beat Rumple at his own game. She out-swindlered the master-swindler. She totally out-manouvered him with the fine print and that doesn't happen very often.

 

But she wasn't going to be powerful in her own right. She had to marry Henry Sr. who wasn't even first in line for the throne and then plot to get Leopold's kingdom for her kid. She would've been more powerful in her own right as wife of the Dark One because her marrying Henry Sr. made no sense. It would track better if she just struck out on her own. And all her "power" was because Rump taught her magic in the first place. I will give her credit for demanding Rump teach her rather than spinning the gold for her. That was clever of her. The most pathetic thing about Cora when they ruined her with Bleeding Through is that her turning down love to control her destiny? Amounted to ruining her kid all to get revenge on Eva. That's the bottom line. She ruined her own life and chance at love and sacrificed her kid for Eva. Now maybe if Eva was some kickass villain in her own right that wouldn't be so pathetic.

 

As for outsmarting Rump, I don't give her credit for that either because Rump was in love with her. He was using his heart and not his brain to think so he was handicapped. Only Ingrid and Anna have outsmarted Rump at full power.

[FurryFury]

But she wasn't going to be powerful in her own right. She had to marry Henry Sr. who wasn't even first in line for the throne and then plot to get Leopold's kingdom for her kid.

 

But Henry was all wrapped around her little finger. He wasn't a threat to her, nor were her feelings for him, unlike her feelings for Rumple. She didn't want anything to threaten the absolute control she had of herself and her life. This is why she chose Henry.

 

As for why she didn't get Henry's kingdom... Honestly, I doubt even the writers know. They just couldn't deal with this plot thread. Not the first or only instance of a dropped or unexplained story on the show, really.

 

It would track better if she just struck out on her own.

 

She was obsessed with the trappings of royalty, though. She wanted to be a queen of her own, or a member of a royal family, at least. It's kinda different from raw power.

 

She would've been more powerful in her own right as wife of the Dark One because her marrying Henry Sr. made no sense.

 

She loved Rumple, though. And she felt threatened by this love. So she got rid of her heart, because this was the only way to overpower her own feelings. Personally, I dig the hell out of this idea. This is such a tragic story - a character who was so irreparably damaged by their flaws and ambition they've not just missed, but actively sabotaged their chance for love, both romantic (Rumple) and familial (Regina). It just speaks to me, I guess.

 

Bleeding Through, now, was just bad. It didn't get the point of Cora or The Miller's Daughter, at all. It was just another lame attempt to make Regina's side of the story more sympathetic, by making Eva "ambiguous". Only it was stupid and not really ambiguous, which is par for the course for Regina's side, of course.

Edited February 24, 2015 by FurryFury

[Shanna Marie]

I had a thought in the episode thread about this idea of Emma having the greatest potential for darkness because of her potential for love, and have had a few further thoughts on the core motivations of this show's villains. There seem to be two categories, the "love" villains, whose villainy came from the deep pain caused by lost love, and the "selfish" villains, who are driven by wanting stuff for themselves.

 

In the love category, we have:

Hook -- went from good to bad in reaction to his brother's death, then went from bad to worse in reaction to his lover's death

Regina -- went evil in reaction to her lover's death

Ingrid -- went evil when she accidentally killed her sister and her other sister seemingly rejected her over this

 

In the selfish category, we have:

Cora -- was willing to give up love in order to move up in the world, to the point she ripped out her own heart. It doesn't seem like love was ever a motivation for her or that she was reacting to loss

Pan -- he rejected the love of his son in order to live a purely selfish life

Zelena -- went evil in pure jealousy. There was some element of lost love in this, but it never seemed to be about how she loved someone else, but rather how they loved her, and she couldn't deal with anyone loving anyone else in addition to her, so I'm putting her in this category

 

I think Rumple straddles the line, fitting in both categories, in a way. He initially became the Dark One out of fear of losing his son, but then he turned selfish enough that he wanted power more than he wanted his son. I don't think he's really evil because of pain from lost love, though, unless his father's behavior did something to warp him that only manifested later, and I suspect that if a similar opportunity to own or become the Dark One had come up without Bae being in danger, he still might have been tempted.

 

The love category of villain seems to be the most redeemable because they can be reached through love. Hook started to turn himself around when he met Emma and started to fall in love with her. He wanted to be a man she could love. A lot of Regina's turnaround has had to do with her love for Henry and his for her, and even the way the Charming clan has welcomed her -- she doesn't need to be evil to get what she wants. Ingrid was turned around by Anna's love and the news of her sister's love for her. It may be harder to reach a selfish villain.

 

And that's where we get to an interesting irony. The selfish villains are dangerous because they're fairly heartless. They see the rest of the universe as secondary to their own desires and don't care about anyone else. The "love" villains are dangerous because they love so deeply that it gives them a great pain that they act out on in inappropriate ways. They'd actually be less dangerous if they didn't love so deeply because they'd be in less pain from their loss. Not that this excuses them. There are other ways of dealing with pain and loss than going on revenge sprees. That's the difference between the heroes and the villains. The heroes don't take their pain out on others.

 

Back to Emma, part of her potential for darkness may be her love. She spent most of her life feeling totally unloved and having no one to love. Now all of a sudden she has parents, a son, a brother, a boyfriend, and friends. If she lost someone now after letting the walls down and finding love, would the pain be too much to bear? That seems to have been a lot of what happened to Hook -- he'd been abandoned, and his brother was all he had, so he just snapped when he lost that one thing.

[Mari]

Well, now that we've seen the first queens of darkness episode, it's pretty obvious from the poll people are interested mostly in Rumple and Cruella, with Maleficent being distant third and poor Ursula being pretty much left in the dust. Anyone willing to revisit why they picked who they did?

I can't say I'm interested particularly in any of them – although, Rumple eating Ramen with Ursula is pretty good – but I am interested in what other people are thinking and whether the first episode changed any minds.