The Villains of Once Upon a Time

[KAOS Agent]

I'm kind of expecting a reverse Hades scenario where Fake!Robin tries to kill Zelena and Regina ends up killing Fake!Robin to protect Zelena. Then all will be forgiven except that Regina will expect and receive epic levels of gratitude from Zelena and still not have the self awareness to understand what Zelena did for her because that's how Regina rolls. And then Regina & Zelena will be back to being sisters nevermind the gross hypocrisy and horribleness of Regina in 6.09.

[orza]

23 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

Had one of those 3AM thoughts while lying in bed awake.

It actually makes sense that Pan's lover was the Black Fairy and fits into the show's continuity. Why? Tinkerbell. She was also exiled from the fairies for doing taboo things. He either felt sympathy or an attraction for her. It was my headcanon that she did appeal to him and that's why he kept her close. So, in other words - Pan has always had a thing for fairy girls.

Rumple was six years old when Malcolm transformed into Pan after they arrived in Neverland. He was still a middle-aged loser when Rumple was born. Pan didn't exist back when Rumple was conceived. We don't know if Rumple's mother was always a fairy or transformed into one sometime after Rumple's birth. Since Malcolm was just a regular schmo it makes more sense that Rumple's mother was also one and then something happened after Rumple's birth that enticed her to become a fairy.

[Mathius]

I don't think a human can become a fairy.  The Black Fairy probably just shagged Malcolm because he amused her, she was never gonna commit. 

Edited December 7, 2016 by Mathius

[tri4335]

28 minutes ago, orza said:

Rumple was six years old when Malcolm transformed into Pan after they arrived in Neverland. He was still a middle-aged loser when Rumple was born. Pan didn't exist back when Rumple was conceived. We don't know if Rumple's mother was always a fairy or transformed into one sometime after Rumple's birth. Since Malcolm was just a regular schmo it makes more sense that Rumple's mother was also one and then something happened after Rumple's birth that enticed her to become a fairy.

 

1 minute ago, Mathius said:

I don't think a human can become a fairy.  The Black Fairy probably just shagged Malcolm because he amused her, she was never gonna commit. 

I could go either way that she was born a fairy or became one.  Regardless of whichever one they choose, they won't explain it and ignore the questions that come up. For example, if she was born a fairy why don't/didn't we see any characteristics in Rumple, Neal or Henry. If she transformed into one can you transform back, how did she become so powerful?

[orza]

Rumple was a normal man who became a powerful magical being so what not fairies? It is certainly canon that humans can transform into magical beings so that could also include becoming fairies. We saw how Malcolm chose becoming Pan over Rumple and how he hated him for that so I think it is likely we'll see how Rumple's mother chose being a powerful fairy over him and that is why Rumple hates fairies. 

[Shanna Marie]

There was all that stuff in season one with Nova and Dreamy/Grumpy about how fairies weren't allowed to fall in love. I wonder if whatever happened with Black caused that rule, or if that was the illustration case for the rule. It's possible that a fairy could give up her wings to be with a human, or else possibly lose her wings for wanting to be with a human and thus end up like Tink. But if she gave them up voluntarily and then changed her mind because she loved power more, that might be a reason she abandoned her husband and son. The love for power would be kind of genetic, but if she was actually mortal when Rumple was born, then pre-Dark One Rumple, and therefore Bae and Henry, would have still been 100 percent human. I'm not sure where the stealing babies thing might have come from, other than maybe some kind of twisted regret about having given up her son to get powers again. Then again, we don't really know Rumple's reasons for stealing babies, other than using them as pawns.

[YaddaYadda]

6 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

I wonder if whatever happened with Black caused that rule, or if that was the illustration case for the rule. 

Blue didn't seem to have any kind of an idea that the Black Fairy had a child out there. Maybe she's the one who invented that pregnancy accelerating sand. She had the baby, ditched him and then business as usual until she started stealing babies.

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

There was all that stuff in season one with Nova and Dreamy/Grumpy about how fairies weren't allowed to fall in love.

I feel so dumb. I've just now grasped that connection between fairies and nuns.

Quote

She had the baby, ditched him and then business as usual until she started stealing babies.

Neal seems to have broken the family tradition of ripping infants away from parents' arms. Well... at least he did one thing right.

Edited December 7, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Curio]

17 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

Neal seems to have broken the family tradition of ripping infants away from parents' arms. Well... at least he did one thing right.

Neal is more in the business of using toddlers as bait for dark shadows.

[Shanna Marie]

11 minutes ago, Curio said:

Neal is more in the business of using toddlers as bait for dark shadows.

Which is pretty much what Rumple did to lure the Black Fairy. So I guess that trait's carried on the same gene.

[InsertWordHere]

1 hour ago, KingOfHearts said:

Neal seems to have broken the family tradition of ripping infants away from parents' arms. Well... at least he did one thing right.

I mean, sending Emma to jail kind of caused her infant (and Neal's) to be ripped from her arms. 

[KingOfHearts]

With Neal in general, if it's not one thing it's another.

[InsertWordHere]

Like Rumple, Neal's child-stealing genes must have combined with each other and rebounded back on him or something. 

[orza]

4 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

There was all that stuff in season one with Nova and Dreamy/Grumpy about how fairies weren't allowed to fall in love. I wonder if whatever happened with Black caused that rule, or if that was the illustration case for the rule.

Falling in love and having sex that results in a pregnancy are two different things. Either one can and does occur without the other.

[Mari]

True, they are.  But they are commonly enough linked  that a ban on one would logically mean a ban on the  other.

[orza]

Banning one does not logically prevent the other from happening. People have sex without emotional entanglements all the time. Ask Emma. She was the queen of one night stands before arriving in Storybrooke.

Declaring that people or fairies are not "allowed" to fall in love doesn't make any sense because there is no way to enforce such a prohibition without some magical means of controlling people's emotions. The Blue Fairy or anyone else ban others from falling in love all they want but that won't actually prevent that from happening.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

41 minutes ago, orza said:

People have sex without emotional entanglements all the time. Ask Emma. She was the queen of one night stands before arriving in Storybrooke.

Really?  Where do you get this?  I don't remember this anywhere from the actual show.  And I've watched from the very first episode.  I think she alluded to at least one affair with a married man over the years but that does not make her the "queen of one night stands".  

42 minutes ago, orza said:

Declaring that people or fairies are not "allowed" to fall in love doesn't make any sense because there is no way to enforce such a prohibition without some magical means of controlling people's emotions. The Blue Fairy or anyone else ban others from falling in love all they want but that won't actually prevent that from happening.

Oh well, now you're just attempting to apply logic to this show.  [giggle, snort!]  Doesn't work so well, does it?

[InsertWordHere]

11 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Really?  Where do you get this?  I don't remember this anywhere from the actual show.  And I've watched from the very first episode.

Emma said, "one nighters are as far as I ever go." I'm not sure that makes her the Queen of one night stands, but yeah, she probably has had her fair share of sex without emotional entanglements. 

Edited December 8, 2016 by InsertWordHere
found the exact quote

[orza]

Well, it was ten years from when Emma got out of jail to when she arrived in Storybrooke. If all she had were one night stands during that time she must have gone through a lot of men. Assuming she only had sex with a partner about once a month would be more than 100 men.

Well, it was ten years from when Emma got out of jail to when she arrived in Storybrooke. If all she had were one night stands during that time she must have gone through a lot of men. Assuming she only had sex with a partner about once a month would be more than 100 men.

Yeah, Emma said that after Mary-Margaret told her about the one night stand with Whale.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

9 hours ago, orza said:

If all she had were one night stands during that time she must have gone through a lot of men. Assuming she only had sex with a partner about once a month would be more than 100 men.

taking this to the Emma thread.

Edited December 8, 2016 by RulerofallIsurvey
cause I can't quote properly.

[Shanna Marie]

15 hours ago, orza said:

Declaring that people or fairies are not "allowed" to fall in love doesn't make any sense because there is no way to enforce such a prohibition without some magical means of controlling people's emotions. The Blue Fairy or anyone else ban others from falling in love all they want but that won't actually prevent that from happening.

Well, yeah, but that's the way it was stated on the show itself. It was said to be a bad thing for a fairy to get involved, and so Nova had to ditch Dreamy, which turned him Grumpy. They never really said why or what the consequences were. Obviously, a fairy did get involved with a human if the Black Fairy is Rumple's mother. Of course, that doesn't mean love was involved, but Blue made it sound like the fairy would be making a huge sacrifice to be with someone, so it doesn't sound like something a fairy would do just because.

And on this show, there's also the chance that they'll have entirely forgotten what was said about fairies and relationships back in season one, and the situation with the Black Fairy won't be in any way related to that.

[andromeda331]

2 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

Well, yeah, but that's the way it was stated on the show itself. It was said to be a bad thing for a fairy to get involved, and so Nova had to ditch Dreamy, which turned him Grumpy. They never really said why or what the consequences were. Obviously, a fairy did get involved with a human if the Black Fairy is Rumple's mother. Of course, that doesn't mean love was involved, but Blue made it sound like the fairy would be making a huge sacrifice to be with someone, so it doesn't sound like something a fairy would do just because.

And on this show, there's also the chance that they'll have entirely forgotten what was said about fairies and relationships back in season one, and the situation with the Black Fairy won't be in any way related to that.

Or that Malcolm would be worth any of that. He really didn't seem like someone anyone would want to ditch their fairy life or any life to be with. He seems more like the type you wake up the next morning completely regretting and maybe swearing off the beer or rum or what ever that made him seem so worth it the night before.

[Rumsy4]

I'm imagining him as an older Robbie Kay, and not as Malcolm. He could've been charming enough for a casual fling.

[Mathius]

32 minutes ago, Rumsy4 said:

I'm imagining him as an older Robbie Kay, and not as Malcolm. He could've been charming enough for a casual fling.

Yeah, I think so too.  Some people have said they felt too much of a disconnect between Pan and Malcolm, which always confused me because if there wasn't a big disconnect between the two, then Malcolm would have no reason to want to become Pan.  The whole point of him was that he was a middle-aged loser who used to be cool, and it took going back to his old childhood haunt for him to finally realize "God, what happened to me?"

Edited December 8, 2016 by Mathius

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

which always confused me because if there wasn't a big disconnect between the two, then Malcolm would have no reason to want to become Pan.  The whole point of him was that he was a middle-aged loser who used to be cool, and it took going back to his old childhood haunt for him to finally realize "God, what happened to me?"

Same sort of thing with Henry Sr. He used to be tall and masculine, but according to Jane, his decrease in stature was to show that Cora beat him down into a little man. I don't mind disconnects if they're used to illustrate a story element. (Neal doesn't have that excuse. He looked different for the surprise factor alone.)

[Mathius]

On 12/8/2016 at 4:05 PM, KingOfHearts said:

(Neal doesn't have that excuse. He looked different for the surprise factor alone.)

Yes. We were given absolutely NOTHING to go by on screen or in dialogue as to why Bae went from the way he was to being Neal. It made no sense.

Quote

He used to be tall and masculine, but according to Jane, his decrease in stature was to show that Cora beat him down into a little man. 

I noticed that.  In 2x16, Prince Henry was confident, charming, and treated Cora as an equal despite her status.  Clearly, Cora had other ideas.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Mathius

[KingOfHearts]

Finally watched the DVD extra, "Knight with Cruella". It was so extremely pointless and added nothing. They even dragged James Marsters into it. Was there some sort of in-joke I was missing? The only thing of note was the reveal that Arthur rules the Underworld for at least another 50 years... but we didn't need to know that. Cruella is an awesome character and deserves a good send-off, but this extra scene wasn't it.

[Camera One]

2 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

Finally watched the DVD extra, "Knight with Cruella". It was so extremely pointless and added nothing. They even dragged James Marsters into it. Was there some sort of in-joke I was missing? The only thing of note was the reveal that Arthur rules the Underworld for at least another 50 years... but we didn't need to know that. Cruella is an awesome character and deserves a good send-off, but this extra scene wasn't it.

I know... what a waste of time.  It added nothing to the worldbuilding, and the dialogue wasn't even funny.  I'm not sure what the point was.

[Hecate7]

On 9/3/2016 at 0:34 PM, KingOfHearts said:

The main problem is that both recent adaptations woobified her. In the animated version, she was so relentlessly evil and that's what made her so iconic. Her entire revenge quest was based on not being invited to a party. Who is that wickedly vain? The horns wouldn't be so silly if she could be as demonic as what they're trying to represent. 

Interestingly enough, the animated versions of Maleficent and Lady Tremaine have very similar facial designs. They give the same death stares that creep into your soul. I'm pretty sure they were voiced by the same actress as well.

The real problem is actresses with beautiful faces and thin bodies, but thin, boring, flat voices that simply can't rise to an iconic level.

[Camera One]

One of the dumbest things they did was in Episode 2 when they made it seem like The Evil Queen was even more evil than Maleficent, who seemed like a pathetic loser in this series.  The coldness of Lady Tremaine (from this show, not Cate Blanchett) was so much more chilling.

[Camera One]

17 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

When does the Sheriff of Nottingham get his redemption arc?! I want to see how he got his tongue back. Maybe Rumple beating him up scared him into changing his behavior. Regina, marry this man!

Yes, he's the mild villain who I think would have been best matched for Regina.  Now, he I can totally imagine having sex in a crypt.  

[Rumsy4]

Remember--he's sexist, and a feminist like Regina deserves way better?

[KingOfHearts]

52 minutes ago, Rumsy4 said:

Remember--he's sexist, and a feminist like Regina deserves way better?

Well, Regina was attracted to Charming, and he's a sexist. (It wasn't just to manipulate him in Storybrooke, either. She liked him in EF too.)

Edited March 14, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[KingOfHearts]

I have a very mixed opinion about the Black Fairy. The actress is doing a fine job and the character is quite the hoot. But, as I've said before, the writers are attempting to spread her out over too many places. In other words, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts. Fiona, the crazy magical mother of Rumple? Sure, I'll buy that. But the fallen fairy who created dark magic and is worthy of fighting the Final Battle? Please. Nimue would put her away. The heroes have fought many immortal foes. She's not even that.

I could picture her as one of the Queens of Darkness. She could pass as an S4 or S5 Big Bad. But not the end-of-the-series ultimate evil. I don't hate her, but within the grand scheme of things she doesn't really work. 

In many ways, she mirrors Maleficent. She has been part of show's fabric almost since the very beginning. We've wanted to see her back in the fray for a long time. Her involvement should have featured characters with actual connections to her. But, instead, she's the mother of a completely different character only to suit the needs of the current season. Her motivations are irrelevant to everything that's been setup in the past.

Edited May 8, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

I DID like her performance in the last few episodes, but as of this episode, she has overstayed her welcome.  She's becoming incredibly repetitive.  She also makes no sense.  Why not just knock Emma out and grab her heart?  Does it have to be a willing action or something?  

Edited May 8, 2017 by Camera One

[Inquirer]

The Black Fairy seems to be a bizarre mix of elements of all the previous big villains (Regina, Rumple, Cora, Pan, Zelena, Ingrid, the Queens of Darkness, Nimue, Hades) in order to forcibly present an "Ultimate Evil".  The problem is she's just a crazy woman who became a particularly powerful fairy, which feels like a huge step down from the Darkness and the God of the Underworld.  Heck, her son is the Darkest of all Dark Ones, which sounds much more threatening then a measly fairy.  They should have just had only Rumple be the Final Boss, no mother or son required.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Inquirer

[Shanna Marie]

I brought this up in the All Seasons thread, but it struck me how few of the Once villains have henchmen, minions, or even followers. When you look at real-world history, nobody can become a dictator without a critical mass of support. There are true believers who really buy into the dictator's world view and want to create that world, there are opportunists who see a path for their own advancement, and then there are the cowards who attach themselves to anyone strong. But the only villain we've seen who had anything like that was Pan, who had his Lost Boys who bought into his philosophy or who at least stuck with him because that was the only real security in Neverland. Otherwise, Regina had her Black Knights, but how many of them were with her willingly rather than forced to serve because she had their hearts? Did any of them join forces with her because they truly believed she was a better queen than Snow would have been or because they saw serving her as a path to advancement? Zelena had her flying monkeys, but I don't think any of them were serving her willingly. They all seemed to be victims of her spell.

I guess in that world you're either a villain or you're a hero fighting against the villains. There's no room for people who might not have their own evil schemes but who might ally themselves with a villain.

But they've had room for that kind of thing. Greg and Tamara should have been able to recruit allies in Storybrooke at that time, with Regina still being a villain and them just coming out of the curse. There should have been plenty of people willing to sign onto the anti-magic, anti-Regina cause. There surely were still a few anti-Regina people when Zelena was in town -- survivors of villages she torched or people who had loved ones in those villages -- who might have signed on to the cause of taking down Regina and making sure she was never born. Were there no people in the Underworld who thought they could get a better afterlife by sucking up to Hades? It makes sense for Ingrid to have been a lone wolf, since that was her issue, that she felt isolated by her magic. Otherwise, you'd think there would have been an opportunist or two.

[KingOfHearts]

You're not a villain or antagonist on this show unless you attempt to murder someone. (Whether you succeed or fail.) I think the only villain who hasn't was the Sheriff of Nottingham.

[Camera One]

Has Gothel attempted to murder someone?  She's such a flower child that I don't think she could be capable of that.

[Rumsy4]

6 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

You're not a villain or antagonist on this show unless you attempt to murder someone. (Whether you succeed or fail.) 

The stupidest of the "fails" was Fiona turning into the Black Fairy the minute she started squeezing Tiger Lily's heart. Or when Gideon was able to open the portal just because Emma was being squeezed to death. Apparently people being "mostly dead" is a thing and is enough to make them "Dark". However, Rumple's heart can be black as coal, and yet he has a good heeeeaaarrrrt. 

[KingOfHearts]

3 hours ago, Rumsy4 said:

The stupidest of the "fails" was Fiona turning into the Black Fairy the minute she started squeezing Tiger Lily's heart. Or when Gideon was able to open the portal just because Emma was being squeezed to death. Apparently people being "mostly dead" is a thing and is enough to make them "Dark". However, Rumple's heart can be black as coal, and yet he has a good heeeeaaarrrrt. 

The OUAT universe really needs some sort of deity or "morality force" to explain this randomness. Lost had Jacob and the Island.

Gothel gave Rapunzel the poisoned mushroom that could kill her parents. Not sure if that counts. She also left Alice to be left for dead.

[KingOfHearts]

I made a joke in the Spoilers thread about Snow running a rehab support group for villains. I'm kind of surprised something like this never made it into the show. There's so many dark characters seeking or needing redemption. The town really should have an initiative led ideally by Archie for repenting of past crimes and absorbing former villains into suburban society. (If they're not going to get actual consequences.) 

On another note, it's interesting to me that no matter how awful you make a villain's crimes, members of the audience will still sympathize with them somehow, depending on how you frame it. While OUAT isn't the only example of this, it's very much a textbook one.

Edited March 15, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

5 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

I made a joke in the Spoilers thread about Snow running a rehab support group for villains. I'm kind of surprised something like this never made it into the show. There's so many dark characters seeking or needing redemption. The town really should have an initiative ran ideally by Archie for repenting of past crimes and absorbing former villains into suburban society. (If they're not going to get actual consequences.) 

That's the type of thing that would have made this a fun show.  But they weren't interested in worldbuilding in Storybrooke at all, after 2A.  Even the supporting characters with centrics in Season 1 became glorified extras.  There should have been crimes or unrest in Storybrooke from the minor villains.  Like with the rabble that King George riled up. 

Instead in 3A, without Snowing (nope, not Regina or Rumple), the town was completely peaceful with nothing for the policing Dwarves to do.  The only problem yet again came from an external source.  It was always all-or-nothing.  Complete peace in Storybrooke for a 1 minute long montage (usually to start off a half-season), or megavillain out to obliterate everyone's existence or become their dictator.

Edited March 15, 2018 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

8 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

The town really should have an initiative led ideally by Archie for repenting of past crimes and absorbing former villains into suburban society.

That would’ve been awesome (X)!

[KingOfHearts]

3 hours ago, Rumsy4 said:

That would’ve been awesome (X)!

Alright, now I want to see Belle and Rumple go to couples therapy.

[crash476]

Have to say, I knew that the Land of Untold Stories Arc was in trouble when they had the Count of Monte Cristo as the villain of the week. My dudes, you either go full Punisher with Edmond Dantes or you don't use him at all.

[Rumsy4]

1 hour ago, crash476 said:

My dudes, you either go full Punisher with Edmond Dantes or you don't use him at all.

Haha. Well said. The problem is the writers of the episode didn't even read the wikipedia entry on Edmond Dantes.

[KingOfHearts]

I don't think the Evil Queen was a very good villain, even in the first season. She wasn't as charismatic as marketing made her out to be. Yes, she chewed the scenery in every opportunity, but other characters on the show did it better. Maybe it's Lana's acting style. Regina as EQ tries to be deliciously evil or seductive, but she's too cartoony to pull it off. It's a tough line to toe when you're campy but complex. In my opinion, Regina is at her best when she's subtly manipulative. The flashback where she got Sidney to murder Leopold was diabolical because she did such a good job at appearing to be the victim and infatuated with her "rescuer". That's why I believe Mayor Mills is a much better villainous persona. She's deceptive, cunning, and doesn't just go around murdering people because she can. All her actions have intent. The Evil Queen is nothing but a bull dog with lipstick, constantly acting out her id's desires.

I do, however, find the Evil Queen more engaging as a tragic character than a primary antagonist. 

Edited June 19, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[KingOfHearts]

The writers missed the point of Facilier entirely. They him walk around Hyperion Heights in suits like a powerful businessman, but the character is meant to be a charlatan from the other side of the tracks. Making him Rumple Lite was redundant and added nothing to the story. His brand of magic should've been distinct - restricted to objects like voodoo dolls or dark rituals. He shouldn't have been able to poof around like everybody else, especially not in the Land Without Magic. (It was never explained, either.) Maybe he could've had an edge in LWM by using witchcraft only, which works in our world. The actor did alright but he was a little too charming. Facilier was slimier in the original material. Nobody trusted him unless they were as dumb as Naveen or as conceited as his assistant. There isn't enough there to say it's A&E's unique spin on the character. You can't just ignore the essence of what you're adapting. That's just lazy. If you're going to subvert expectations, you have to go all the way. 

[Camera One]

A lot of the villains on this show end up having the same powers.  Other than Ingrid with the ice power, it seems like Cora, Regina, Zelena, Rumple, Facilier, Gothel, The Black Fairy... their abilities are pretty much indistinguishable.  They're pretty much all-powerful, which means the heroes are always just reacting.  It makes things less interesting.

Edited August 4, 2018 by Camera One