The Villains of Once Upon a Time

[Mathius]

But this isn't a normal decent person with a conscience, this is CAPTAIN HOOK. For HIM to take such an action actually was a big deal and was indeed the first glimpse into seeing that he could potentially become a hero, since he had nothing to lose by just sailing off with the bean and using it, yet he came back anyway.

Edited August 9, 2014 by Mathius

[Amerilla]

And then the other staff writer went, "At the end of the day [Hook] is a hero, he's just bad at admitting it to himself."  So that's Hook's biggest problem... admitting to himself that he's actually a hero?

 

 

Yeah, whenever I look at Hook I think: "Know what that guy's problem is? Low self-esteem."

 

The staff writers have a job to do, and I get that. If WE have to head-canon to get through this stuff, can you imagine what these poor (albeit well-paid) slobs have to go through to bring Adam and Eddy's "vision" to life?  It's not like they can say: "well, Regina went from 'I have no regrets' to shooting white magic out of her secret soul-muscle in the space of 11 episodes and with virtually no visible signs of growth or change because we needed her to be happy and loving so we can rip it all away from her in the final moment of the season finale," or "Hook turned the ship around because we decided it was time to light the Captain Swan candle, and you can hardly have The Savior fall for a completely unrepentant butt-munch." So heartless Regina "loves with her whole soul" and Hook is "really a hero at heart," and the only thing that keeps Rumple even remotely coherent at this point is the good graces of Robert Carlyle.  

 

Though this show really looks better when you only watch clips of it. 

 

 

 

...And when they are commentary-free. I like a good SCDD panel video or PaleyFest roundtable as much as the next person, but as the storytelling, particularly vis-a-vis the villains, has disintegrated over the last season and change, the commentary has grown more frustrating, because it's increasingly at odds with what they show us on-screen....which is really the only thing that should matter.

[Shanna Marie]

I love Hook, and I think he's currently on a good path with potential to be heroic, but I certainly wouldn't call him a hero yet. So far, we don't have any reason to know if he's heroic in general or just heroic for Emma (the way Regina is pretty much strictly heroic for Henry). I definitely don't count turning the ship around and coming back with the magic bean to be a heroic act. It's just the first step back from villainy. He showed great heroic potential in going through the time portal after Emma and working with her to right the timeline, and he did sacrifice his ship to get to Emma to bring her back to her family, but while I think there was some element of doing the right thing in there, he mostly did it for love of Emma.

 

I'll be more ready to call him a hero when he puts himself on the line in a situation that has nothing to do with Emma, where he's not saving her or her family -- like if he helps someone like Archie or Belle or one of the dwarfs. He'll really be there if he puts himself on the line for Rumple because it's a situation when it's the right thing to do.

 

Yeah, whenever I look at Hook I think: "Know what that guy's problem is? Low self-esteem."

It's kind of a mixed bag, actually. He's impressed with his own looks, charm and skills and expects other people to be equally impressed. But he also considers himself a pretty terrible person. He actually hit himself and considered that he deserved it (how Freudian can you get?). At the moment, he would be accurate in not considering himself a hero, but I could also see that even if he did truly become a hero, he wouldn't be able to see himself that way because he'd be weighing it against all the bad things he's done and seeing that things were still out of balance. But that's not uncommon in heroes. True heroes don't see themselves as heroes. They're just doing what needs to be done and trying to do the right thing, and they're capable of seeing their own flaws. People who see themselves as heroes are the ones you need to worry about. They're probably villains.

[YaddaYadda]

The writers take on the character is far more different than the actors' take on the characters they're playing.  I always love listening to JMo when she talks about Emma and how she perceives her character.  I love Hook and I think he's far from being in hero territory and I honestly wouldn't want him to be.  He is a grey character, he falls in neither the white not the black hat category.  He can have his moments of being a "hero", but he shouldn't be a full out one like Charming for instance.  I'm not even sure that Colin considers Hook to be a "hero" unless he said something.

[Shanna Marie]

He is a grey character, he falls in neither the white not the black hat category.

I wonder if this show is really capable of dealing with grey, though. They may show something that looks like grey, but what they tell us gets pretty black and white. You're either a villain or a hero. Regina got called a hero in the actual text when she intervened to stop the failsafe she herself had set up to kill everyone but her and Henry, and she only intervened when it got hijacked and both she and Henry were going to be caught in it. If we're grading on that scale, I can see how the writers might call Hook a hero, since him not only coming back with the magic bean but then volunteering his ship and the bean to help rescue Henry practically qualifies him for sainthood.

 

On the other hand, the standards for "hero" on this show are so high that I don't think Hook could ever measure up. Apparently, heroes aren't allowed to get angry at someone who's wronged them, or else it's evidence that their heart has been darkened. They're not allowed to hurt or kill anyone for any reason, not even to stop a villain who's threatening people (I guess heroes have to find that mythical "other way"). And God forbid they actually be angry at the villain they hurt or kill. I think Hook has learned his lesson about destroying his life with a long-term revenge quest that turns everyone else around him into collateral damage, but if someone hurt Emma, you can bet that if it's at all possible, that person would soon have either a hook or a cutlass embedded in some vital organ, and according to the rules of this show, that's not hero behavior even if that person is an immediate threat to other people. In that case, he might remain "grey" if he's a good guy who's allowed to be angry, who's allowed to snark at Regina and who can get away with killing villains.

 

It remains to be seen if that idea that a villain who does one good thing gets called a hero while a hero who was never a villain is never allowed to show any flaws without being considered as bad as a villain applies to all villains-turned-hero or just to those whose names start with "R."

[Camera One]

On the other hand, the standards for "hero" on this show are so high that I don't think Hook could ever measure up

 

If we take Henry's constant pronouncements that Regina is a hero, the standards for "hero" on this show are as low as they come.  It's the good guys' expectations for themselves which are sky high.  Snow and Charming strive to be the ultimate honorable hero, who try not to kill and will sacrifice themselves for strangers or the good of all.  They are the ones counselled by the likes of Gandalf and Dumbledore, who counsel peace, understanding, mercy and your greatest weapon is love.

 

 

 

It remains to be seen if that idea that a villain who does one good thing gets called a hero while a hero who was never a villain is never allowed to show any flaws without being considered as bad as a villain applies to all villains-turned-hero or just to those whose names start with "R".

 

This describes well the double standard of it all.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Camera One

[Mari]

It remains to be seen if that idea that a villain who does one good thing gets called a hero while a hero who was never a villain is never allowed to show any flaws without being considered as bad as a villain applies to all villains-turned-hero or just to those whose names start with "R."

 

If we start continually hearing that Hook's a hero, we could discover that Hook's middle name is Registiltskin. 

 

Otherwise, I'm not sure we're going to be hearing it on a regular basis. 

[Shanna Marie]

If we take Henry's constant pronouncements that Regina is a hero, the standards for "hero" on this show are as low as they come.

Henry's also the one spouting stuff like "Heroes don't kill people!" And no one on the show has yet said, "Shut up, Henry," or otherwise given him some loving correction on that count. So Regina is a hero, and yet heroes don't kill people.

 

So, yeah, there's a double standard, and it's not unique to this show. The bad boy who does one good thing and gets beatified while the good boy does one bad thing and gets damned to hell for all eternity trope is all over TV. Sometimes it's the shows themselves and sometimes it's just a fan attitude, regardless of what the show is trying to say.

 

So far, though, no one on the show has actually called Hook a hero. It's apparently just on some villains DVD feature. I actually would prefer for him to keep doing heroic deeds while people aren't seeing him as a hero. I'm more likely to pull for a character like that than like someone who keeps getting called a hero but without really being one.

[Jean]

I wonder if this show is really capable of dealing with grey, though. They may show something that looks like grey, but what they tell us gets pretty black and white. You're either a villain or a hero.

I've been saying forever this show doesn't do grey. They do black and white, it's just their black and white is pretty effed up. What they do is "Eva is evil" and "Woegina is the biggest victim." That's really their spectrum.

Quite frankly they sound pretty pompous and pretentious when they go on and on about their complex and grey characters. They're like those fake wine tasters that will throw out terms like aroma, acidity, complexity etc. trying to pretend to be sophisticated but in reality the only thing they know is red or white.

I don't think Hook is either a villain or a hero. He's more of an anti-hero. And the only thing saving his character from being completely obnoxious is that they don't have the need to pidgeon hole him, or turn an entire show into his fanfiction. I think they're ok with pirate as the main descriptor. Because he's not completely a villain they don't need to work overtime to "redeem" him and make him a hero. And because he's not a hero either, they don't need to work overtime to bring him low to the "villains" level.

[Camera One]

So far, though, no one on the show has actually called Hook a hero. It's apparently just on some villains DVD feature.

 

The original importance of that was one of the staff writers consider him a hero (and the problem Hook has is he can't admit it to himself) and another alluded to the first steps of Hook being heroic (citing the pirate ship turnaround).  These are the team members who write the show and discuss the potential storylines we see. Knowing their mindset is significant.

 

 

 

Quite frankly they sound pretty pompous and pretentious when they go on and on about their complex and grey characters. They're like those fake wine tasters that will throw out terms like aroma, acidity, complexity etc. trying to pretend to be sophisticated but in reality the only thing they know is red or white.

 

That's how the Eddie/Adam interviews come off a lot of the time.  Unfortunately, I think they actually believe it.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Camera One

[Mari]

Sure, but he also could have sown discontent by just kneecapping everyone.

 

In the end, Pan's "mind games" only ever made everyone slightly irritable, but there was never a moment where they seemed even close to tearing apart. Even the mermaids did a better job of that.

 

No, Pan's mind games weren't successful, and after a while  they did end up being tedious viewing.

 

However, they did have the potential to cause huge amounts of trouble, and they make sense as a staple Peter Pan tactic, on a couple of levels.

 

Pan was used to dealing with and breaking down children.  Children who were completely out of their element and isolated, and therefore easily manipulated by mind games.  The only adults he seems to have had to deal with were Tinkerbelle and Hook, both of whom were not trusting people.  Tinkerbelle ended up there somehow after completely misjudging Regina and being demoted (Is that the right word?) by Blue, and while Hook did have his crew, and I don't think he is stupid, he'd been betrayed by his king, tricked by Pan before (and lost his brother), and become a pirate.  That would likely make both of them more susceptible to mind games.

 

Plus, while kneecapping them would have done the same job, it didn't seem to suit Malcolm/Pan's self-image.  Pan was an eternal child, and, yes, children can do horrific violence,  but he was an eternal child who was also a middle aged man, with a middle-aged man's vision of what a child is.

 

Children play games.

 

Was the tactic successful?  No.  But I do think it was a reasonable place for Pan to start trying to deal with the Nevengers;  it was the type of tactic he was comfortable with, and usually worked.  What doesn't make sense to me is why he continued with the similar tactics, unless the 300ish years he spent there stuck his brain in that pattern.

[Dani-Ellie]

Children play games.

 

I think this is the key. I remember thinking the map thing was cool from a storytelling perspective because there was just a touch of innocence to it. Like two kids playing a game, Pan had given Emma a coded treasure map. The fact that the "treasure" she was seeking was her kidnapped son and the "code" she needed to figure out to make the map appear was her own emotional damage turns that innocence on its head, which was rather awesome ... and unbelievably cruel.

 

Mind games are more insidious than just out and out kneecapping or killing because the intent is to force the "players" in the game to destroy themselves.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Dani-Ellie

[Mari]

Mind games are more insidious than just out and out kneecapping or killing because the intent is to force the "players" in the game to destroy themselves.

Yes.  Pan was actually really creepy, when you take a really close look at some of the things he did, but the show just did a terrible job of emphasizing or making obvious what was actually dangerous and creepy about him.

 

People have wondered why Pan's shadow kept recruiting kids after they found Henry.  

 

There weren't that many boys, for a shadow who had been collecting for approximately 300 years.  They don't age and they couldn't just leave; Bae might have, but that was treated as impossible and remarkable.  If there were still boys there from when Baelfire was dancing around to Pan's pipe back in the Enchanted Forest, why did none of them seem to recognize Rumplestiltskin, or realize who Neal was when people were calling him Baelfire?  There had to be a boy turnover, so where did they go?

 

My theory?  Pan's Lost Boys kept dying from Pan's games.  The scenes where Henry is sword fighting, and they are shooting arrows, and playing around--well, we know from Hook's comments and what happened with David that those arrows and swords are coated with poison.

 

If you know about the spring water, and get to it in time, you live.  You don't, you die.  Boys that aren't well-liked by the others, or are weaker?  They didn't get there.  They died.

 

It was also one more way of controlling the Lost Boys.  If they did figure out a way to leave, leaving means dying anyway--you've been poisoned.  I've wondered how many of the Lost Boys died--or would have died--when they left Neverland, simply because of the poison coating all of their "toys".

[Joenigma]

 

My theory?  Pan's Lost Boys kept dying from Pan's games.  The scenes where Henry is sword fighting, and they are shooting arrows, and playing around--well, we know from Hook's comments and what happened with David that those arrows and swords are coated with poison.

 

If you know about the spring water, and get to it in time, you live.  You don't, you die.  Boys that aren't well-liked by the others, or are weaker?  They didn't get there.  They died.

 

Whoa, and when you add to the fact that when you use the water and lived you can't leave. Makes me wonder if any of the Lost Boys that returned with Emma and the gang survived the next day.

[Camera One]

My theory?  Pan's Lost Boys kept dying from Pan's games.  The scenes where Henry is sword fighting, and they are shooting arrows, and playing around--well, we know from Hook's comments and what happened with David that those arrows and swords are coated with poison.

 

That's a really good theory and would make sense.  Though they never explicitly spell it out, and it is doubtful they will since it makes Peter Pan an indirect mass murderer of children (which could have accumulated into the thousands after so many centuries), and despite Hook and Tinkerbelle having no real powers to resist, they would be colluders or at least not-so-bothered bystanders.  They was also no real urgency to save any of the other Lost Boys, or even any dialogue about them.  They could have explored this if they had done another Bae flashback in Neverland.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Camera One

[Mari]

That's a really good theory and would make sense.  Though they never explicitly spell it out, and it is doubtful they will since it makes Peter Pan an indirect mass murderer of children (which could have accumulated into the thousands after so many centuries), and despite Hook and Tinkerbelle having no real powers to resist, they would be colluders or at least not-so-bothered bystanders.  They was also no real urgency to save any of the other Lost Boys, or even any dialogue about them.  They could have explored this if they had done another Bae flashback in Neverland.

True--and it would have made the story much darker if they'd been willing to spell it out.  (Unless I'm giving them too much credit, and the showrunners have, yet again, no clue exactly what story they actually told.)

 

As for Tink and Hook, I go back and forth between how much they actually knew.  I mean, obviously they knew that there were Lost Boys, and what their basic tactics were--but how many of the average boys would they be able to tell apart?  How much of the boys day-to-day lives did they know about?

 

Tink and Hook actively avoided the Lost Boys--the only ones they seemed to know by name were lieutenant types like Felix.  The boys regularly wore capes and hoods when chasing people down.  I think it's entirely possible that Tink and Hook are guilty of collaboration and/or heinous indifference, but I think there's enough wiggle room to be able to claim that Tink and/or Hook had suspicions, but didn't really know.

[stealinghome]

I'm hardly a big Hook fan, but--even if Tink and Hook knew, what exactly could they have done? Both were powerless in Neverland, and talking morality at Pan wouldn't have accomplished a thing. Avoiding the Lost Boys as much as possible (and defending yourself when they attack, as it's implied Hook did) seems to be the only real option there.

 

I do agree that one of the creepiest, and most dangerous-feeling, elements of Neverland was the Lord of the Flies vibe they gave Pan/the Lost Boys. But like everything else with Neverland, it was good for the first 3-4 episodes, and then the writers softpedaled it too much.

Edited August 12, 2014 by stealinghome

[Camera One]

I agree, and that's why I added they couldn't have done anything.  But they could have said something more (even a line or two) about needing to save the Lost Boys or what was *really* happening, but the entire issue was glossed over, which suggests the writers didn't really want to go into what Peter Pan did with the boys.

 

I agree they gave a lot of wiggle room that Hook and Tinkerbelle might not have known.  

 

Yet at the same time, they insisted that Tinkerbelle would be the key to get into Peter Pan's camp.  I really don't think so given we didn't even see Peter Pan and Tinkerbelle interact once.

 

I do agree that one of the creepiest, and most dangerous-feeling, elements of Neverland was the Lord of the Flies vibe they gave Pan/the Lost Boys. But like everything else with Neverland, it was good for the first 3-4 episodes, and then the writers softpedaled it too much.

 

Strange thing is, I totally felt that the first time I watched the first few episodes.  But as you said, after a few episodes in (and ESPECIALLY doing a rewatch), it was just tedious to watch.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Camera One

[Mari]

I agree, and that's why I added they couldn't have done anything.  But they could have said something more (even a line or two) about needing to save the Lost Boys or what was *really* happening, but the entire issue was glossed over, which suggests the writers didn't really want to go into what Peter Pan did with the boys.

 

I agree they gave a lot of wiggle room that Hook and Tinkerbelle might not have known.  

They could have, but I'm not sure the characters were in a headspace that would make that a sensible-sounding idea.

 

Tink and Hook both spent decades (or centuries) thinking of the Lost Boys as nearly invincible enemies.  The idea that these were just children had been intimidated or battled out of Tink and Hook long, long ago.

 

Plus, do we know how time feels in Neverland?  Because we've figured it out, because even if the Shadow was only taking one child a year, the Lost Boys were short about 120 kids.  If all the years float together, you could think the same thirty kids have been chasing you around the whole time.

 

If they didn't know that the children were dying, it might simply not have occurred to them that the children needed or wanting rescuing.  We do, because when we think of child soldiers, we're thinking mostly of those poor, desperate children forced into it.

 

Tink and Hook wouldn't necessarily have that perspective, and it's hard to think "Victim" when someone is shooting poisoned arrows at you.  Mostly, you think "enemy" or "help".

Edited August 12, 2014 by Mari

[Camera One]

Hook did jobs for Peter Pan and Tink was supposedly in Peter Pan's inner circle (enough to get into his camp with no permission), so I doubt Lost Boys were shooting poisoned arrows at them 24/7.  If Tink was in the camp and saw the boys, it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to realize something was off, especially if she heard them crying at night.  Both Tink and Hook are the perceptive sort.  Of course, they were both blinded by anger while in Neverland and as you said, in their headspace, I can buy that they were preoccupied with their own issues and couldn't care less about anything else.  It all comes down to how fuzzy wuzzy the world building on this show is, even when they spend an entire half-season somewhere, we come away not really knowing much about it at all.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Camera One

[Amerilla]

In general, I agree with Camera One - the usual Team OUAT fuzzy-wuzzy world-building - but I also wonder if the telling of the story might have been different had they not been fast-tracking Captain Swan?

 

Hook went to Neverland to live long enough to figure out a way to kill Rumpel. Now, even back in The Crocodile, this didn't make a tremendous amount of sense as game plans go - because unless there's free wifi in Neverland, it seems like it would be awfully hard place to do reconnaissance and planning from, and he only had one bean, which meant he didn't really have a way to get out once he got there, but whatever. Assume he had some master plan and he periodically poops magic beans. His goal is to stay in Neverland and stay alive, and that means staying in Pan's good graces.  

 

If he's determined enough to stay that he hands the child of the woman he loved over to Pan, why would we assume he was any different during the rest of his time in Neverland?

 

(Yes, Bae demanded off the ship and probably would have been captured anyway, but that doesn't change the fact that Hook handed him over to Felix and The Minions "You have the boy. He will be pleased?" Hook had no idea what would happen to Bae, but he'd been there long enough to know it probably wasn't going to be sunshine and lollipops.)

 

It would be consistent with his S2 characterization to show that he'd played ball with Pan all those years in Neverland - maybe not happily, but willingly enough. It would have been a decent twist on the Hook-Pan story to show Pan as the darker, more malevolent one. It would have been a way to tell a little bit of that Lord of the Flies aspect of this Neverland. And it would have explained how Hook got OUT of Neverland, for services rendered.

 

But I think showing more of that side of Hook and his obsessive need to avenge his lost love in the same set of episodes where he's playing kissy-face with The Savior would have been a trick. Very good writers could have made it work and made it deep....but these are not very good writers and maybe it's best that they didn't try.

[ShadowFacts]

I felt like Peter Pan had something very unwholesome going on there, that the ever-provocative A&E wanted to hint at but not get into.  There was that strange slo-mo sequence with Henry dancing around the fire with the boys, that had a cult-like or drugged-up vibe to it.  Wendy in the cage also didn't sit well.  Everything about Neverland was creepy to me, but I suppose that was the intent.  Though sometimes creepy can be intriguing and draw you in; not this time, not this place.

[Shanna Marie]

Hook went to Neverland to live long enough to figure out a way to kill Rumpel.

I thought he went to get the Dreamshade, the poison he thought might be the one way to kill the Dark One that he knew about from his first trip to Neverland when his brother died. He just ended up getting stuck there for a long time because he didn't plan ahead enough to have a way back before he went.

[Amerilla]

I thought he went to get the Dreamshade, the poison he thought might be the one way to kill the Dark One that he knew about from his first trip to Neverland when his brother died.

 

 

Good point, although when I double-checked the transcript for The Crocodile, I don't think they'd come up with that motivation until a bit later - back then, he was talking vaguely about going to Neverland to "discover" how he could get revenge - and I doubt they came up with the brother thing until they needed to give him a sobby origin story.

 

Gets back to the world-building issue: they needed Hook to be attached to Neverland (because otherwise he's not really Hook), but they didn't seem to think through a lot of the details in putting him there.

[Mathius]

Was the tactic successful?  No.  But I do think it was a reasonable place for Pan to start trying to deal with the Nevengers;  it was the type of tactic he was comfortable with, and usually worked.  What doesn't make sense to me is why he continued with the similar tactics, unless the 300ish years he spent there stuck his brain in that pattern.

But that's the thing: he DIDN'T continue with similar tactics, at least not with Emma's group. The Echo Cave gambit was his last effort on them, hoping their secrets would destroy each other. When that failed, he went "fuck it" and decided to accelerate his mind games only on the one they'd been proving successful with: Henry. And because he was successful with Henry, he almost won in the end. He lost because he underestimated Emma and Regina as mothers. And THEN he rebounded, using what he learned from his defeat AGAINST Regina.

Overall despite his motto, Peter Pan DID fail, but it was definitely not from a lack of trying.

[stealinghome]

Yeah, I actually think one of the reasons Neverland got really stale after about 4 episodes is because Pan wasn't screwing with the Nevengers every chance he got. 3x02 was good in that regard, but then from 3x03 to 3x09--a solid seven episodes--the only thing he did was the lame-ass Neal's alive/Cave of Secrets thing. (Hence why the endless trekking through the jungle got so repetitive--the writers were clearly just creating McGuffins to eat up time.)

 

Really what the writers should have done with those seven episodes was have Pan constantly popping in and out, playing mindgames with the group. Heck, you could even have had Pan focusing his attention on a different Nevenger in each episode in the way he was clearly fucking with Emma in 3x02--so say Regina could've been 3x03, give Neal/Rumpel the same basic story in 3x04 (though hopefully a much better version), Hook 3x05, Snowing 3x06, leading into the group's showdown with Pan in 3x08/9. (I'll leave 3x07 as a "floater" episode, but you could also split up Snow and Charming into two episodes.) I think that would have made Pan seem genuinely more menacing and also the endless trekking much less repetitive; I don't mind the map McGuffin in 3x02 nearly as much, for example, because it was one of Pan's mindgames, not just some random object the writers dreamed up to stall the show. They also could've then showed Pan winning a little more--causing legitimate discord--that would've made the heroes' banding together seem more momentous. Because one of the things that strikes me thinking back on 3A is how ineffective Pan's schemes were; really the only plot of his that sowed any discord was the Echo Cave stuff, and that was really just between Hook and Neal.* And I think we can all agree that that was, shall we say, a little regrettable. But the show missed some real opportunities in Neverland for some of the key relationships to have legitimate rough patches that would lead to the relationships becoming stronger.

 

Also, I thought Robbie Kay played well off of the adult cast members he got to do one-on-one scenes with, so I really wish we'd been able to see him go mano-a-mano with Regina, Snow, and Charming. He never really had scenes with those three.

 

*Snow was mad at Charming for half an episode, but that wasn't really an effect of Pan's mindgames, so I don't really count it.

Edited August 16, 2014 by stealinghome

[KAOS Agent]

The fact that Pan never messed with Regina really bothered me. Somehow Regina managed to avoid having to do anything even remotely emotionally strenuous in 3A. She even got out of the Echo Cave revelations. Her little thing with Tinkerbell didn't really do anything other than have her realize that perhaps her past actions might now have consequences, but of course they didn't because Tink joined right up with everyone with little convincing, so no negative consequences there. Shocker. But how is it that Regina managed to stay off of Pan's radar? Regina is easily the most easily manipulated character among all of the Nevengers, so she should have been the first person Pan picked on to sow discontent in the team. Her never having to deal with Pan's mind games is a major disappointment for the Neverland arc. 

[Jean]

I thought it was obvious and logical why he picked on Emma, Rumple, Hook and Neal. Those 4 were/are the "lost kids." At one point or another they were all abandoned or felt like they were abondoned. That's his expertise and what made him Peter Pan. So the idea was there, but just like everything else the execution sucked. His best scenes were taunting Rumple and Emma because he clearly got to those 2 even though they were putting on a brave face. Hook and Neal were affected but less so because those 2 spent at least a century with him.

I think maybe the more interesting setup would be to have those 4 together in a group and going mental. Not only do they have their own issues but collectively they all have LV worthy baggage with one another.

Then Woegina and Snow/Charming can do the quest Mcguffin thing, bickering with each other but largely successful because the island doesn't affect them. But it can highlight their different philosophies in life. Sometimes Woegina's methods work and sometimes Snow's does.

But honestly I think they lost sight of Neverland and Pan's mind game after episode 2. After that it seemed like everything was just filler so that they could get to the lame-o reveal of Pan is Rumple's father and setting up Wicked/Going Home. It's really to Robbie Kay's credit that he carried the arc for as long as he did. While I liked Mader, I thought she was less successful than him.

[YaddaYadda]

Regarding the whole Neverland, I was skipping around on Youtube this morning and fell accidentally on a ComiCom vid from last year, Q&A with both Colin and MRJ and they both seemed to be expecting something more for their characters out of the Neverland arc.  Their take on Neverland and where their characters fit was interesting. 

 

OUaT did what it always does with their villains, they declaw them.  They turn all the boasting into stupid whimpers.  At the end of S2, Rumple was like "(Pan) is someone we should all fear."

 

So really?  Why?  Rumple had daddy issues, so I get his fear.  Hook, they didn't even go far enough to show whatever happened between him and Pan.  Why did Pan make a deal with Hook to let him leave Neverland in the first place?  Those were the two people who had dealings with Pan outside of probably Baelfire. 

 

I think Pan could have been formidable.  His ending was very whomp whomp whomp.

[Shanna Marie]

Having now actually seen that villains feature on the DVD set that we were discussing a few weeks ago, it makes a lot more sense to me. One problem was that they seemed to be using the word "hero" to mean both Hero -- in the capital H, Charming, totally self-sacrificing super good guy sense -- and to mean good guy/protagonist/non-villain. When they were talking about Hook becoming a hero when he turned his ship around, I think they meant it as turning from a bad guy to a good guy, not going all the way to true Hero. Then when they were talking about him being bad at admitting it to himself, they showed the clip of Blackbeard taunting him about going soft, so I don't think it was meant in the sense that "wow, he just doesn't realize how awesome he really is," but rather that he's still not sure about being seen as a good guy. At that point, he's still too worried about his reputation and wants to be seen as the big, bad pirate even if his heart's not in it, and we saw that in him paying off the bar wench rather than declining the offer in front of his men and in caving to Blackbeard rather than admit that yes, he is good. It seems that at the present time, he's past that, given that he did end up giving up the pirate ship. It didn't seem in the present-day stories that he was at all worried about looking too good to anyone but Smee and in fact actually wanted the others to see him as good. It might have helped if we'd seen some of the transition, what happened between Ariel diving off his ship and leaving him with that "oops" moment and him giving up his ship. Did he start being torn by guilt right away, did he sink into drunken depression, did he start making changes then?

 

As for the rest of the feature, they seemed to be saying all the right things about villains (to the point I almost felt like they'd been reading my posts), even mentioning that while Regina has had some bad stuff happen, so have the good guys, and they just have made different choices in response. It would be nice if that actually showed up on the screen, though, instead of them pushing poor Regina and disregarding any pain the good guys might feel or not letting them respond to the bad things that happen to them. I found it interesting that they mentioned that for both Rumple and Regina, their problem is that they don't realize when they actually have their happy ending and they trip themselves up by going too far and wanting too much. They specifically mentioned the dagger and Belle -- he was free from Zelena and he had Belle, but he couldn't let go of the dagger. I wonder if that could also refer to the Marian situation with Regina -- she's got it pretty good in general, in that she has her son back, she's still got power, she's still in charge of the town, she defeated Zelena and saved the day, and now she's a respected and even somewhat loved member of the community, but knowing her, she'll see it as a loss and total failure if she doesn't also have her boyfriend, and she could risk losing everything else in an attempt to hold onto him, too, so she can have it all. Just like her curse was broken because she wasn't willing to share Henry with Emma and wanted to get rid of Emma so she could have it all.

[KingOfHearts]

 

she's got it pretty good in general, in that she has her son back, she's still got power, she's still in charge of the town, she defeated Zelena and saved the day, and now she's a respected and even somewhat loved member of the community, but knowing her, she'll see it as a loss and total failure if she doesn't also have her boyfriend, and she could risk losing everything else in an attempt to hold onto him, too, so she can have it all.

 

This goes back to S2, when she and Rumple were mourning over Cora in the crypt. Rumple told Regina she has to choose Henry or revenge iirc, and that she can't have everything. He advised her to quit while she's ahead instead of pursuing things she can't have. It's like the old saying - a bird in the hand is worth two in a bush. She may be able to pursue and get something else, but in the process she'll lose what she already has. Cora was actually wiser than Regina for knowing you can't have both love and power. Cora chose one path and got what she wanted. Regina, on the other hand, wants to play both villain and hero, which is impossible because they fundamentally contradict each other.

 

Rumple is going down the same path with Belle - he wants power, but he also wants love from Belle. Eventually he'll have to choose one or the other, and I can bet he'll choose power.

Edited August 20, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Jean]

I think Rumple's situation is a bit more complicated than "wanting your cake and eating it too." Everytime he gives up that dagger, shit hits the fan. First when he told the Charmings the location of it and then for Neal. Also giving up that dagger is giving up his agency. It's not in the same league as letting yourself move on and give up revenge, power etc. I mean some of it is that but he would be giving up control of himself too, with that dagger. What frustrates me about the story is the dagger should be a non-issue. Rumbelle can break the curse and Rumple can live and still have power and magic though not as powerful as the Dark One's powers. They don't even talk about that true love kiss anymore. Now I'm not advocating for this story cause I like my Rumple scheming and manipulative but if they want to do this story, then the TLK conversation needs to happen. I suspect they don't because then it would just be a flashing neon sign that Rumbelle isn't this epic love story they like to pretend it is.

 

 

As for the rest of the feature, they seemed to be saying all the right things about villains (to the point I almost felt like they'd been reading my posts), even mentioning that while Regina has had some bad stuff happen, so have the good guys,

 

I could be wrong for the feature I saw on youtube but it was Jane E. who said that line right? Now I know she wrote that shitastic episode Bleeding Through but she works for A&E, can't exactly go against their vision. I like to think Jane E. is more aware than the St. Woegina cult leaders A&E. She ran Wonderland for the most part and there I saw perhaps the best "redemption" across the 2 shows, with Anastasia. And she also kept Jafar evil with no need for an overly sobby tragic story and no one was proclaiming him the biggest victim or having a good heart.

[KingOfHearts]

If it were just about keeping the dagger out of the wrong hands, Rumple would have accepted Belle's offer of putting it in the Dark One's Vault, or he could just TLK her and not have to worry about it ever again. He wants Belle to love and trust him, so that's why he has her thinking she has the real one. But since he wants both power and her love, that's when crap hits the fan.

 

I don't think he'd have magic without the Dark One curse, really. He didn't before it, and as Zelena said, "Magic is a gift." Not just anyone can use it. The only reason he has magic is because of the dagger.

 

I would really like to see Belle killed off and Rumple going over the edge mentally. He could be the Big Bad in full imp state.

Edited August 22, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Shanna Marie]

I saw this post on author Jennifer Crusie's blog about making characters sympathetic even if they've done awful things, and it reminded me a lot about the problems this show has had with some of its villain "redemption" stories. The most relevant part:

 

If you create a character with strengths and flaws and demonstrate them on the page so that the character becomes three-dimensional, her screw-ups become forgivable because she’s human and everybody screws up, but only if she sets things to right. If she creates pain and chaos, then she has a responsibility to clean up the mess. If she does that, we can maintain our attachment to her because we’ve been there, too.

 

One other aspect is important in establishing sympathy for a character: vulnerability. If he’s a master of the universe, then even if he hurts someone and apologizes sincerely and politely, we’re not going to be engaged because he’s invulnerable. The apologies that are the most devastating are the ones that cost the character real pain to make because they make him or her vulnerable, not just admitting that he made a mistake, but making it clear on the page that the admission is painful, that it hurts him that he’s hurt others, that it matters to him beyond social courtesy.

I this is a big reason I don't buy Regina's so-called redemption. Her only effort to clear up her mess was when she was trying to undo the failsafe, but she barely admitted that she was wrong to have brought it out and even tried to justify that action ("you were going to leave me behind") and never admitted any fault in what drove Greg to want to use it. She undid the entire curse when Pan cast a new version that would have killed them all but has never yet admitted that she was wrong to cast the first curse in the first place. She hasn't apologized at all and has shown no sign of remorse for the things she's done, let alone that she feels any pain for the pain she's caused others, even when she herself is going through a similar situation and should be realizing that this is what she's done to others. Any vulnerability we see in her is her own focus on her own suffering, not her suffering because of realizing what she's done to others. She remains oblivious to that.

 

With Rumple, there's sometimes a sense that he feels some kind of regret or remorse, and he did apologize to Neal, but he doesn't seem to be trying very hard to set things right or to really change anything, even after achieving his goal. He's also still the master of the universe, in control of way too much for him to be a truly redeemed villain. However, I don't think they're trying to show him as redeemed at all. He's just complex.

 

I think one reason Hook's redemption works is that we have seen that some of the things he's done do bother him, as with his tearful confession and apology to the person he thought was Ariel, and he's tried to make some amends, like offering his boat and the bean to rescue Henry. Even though that scene with Zelena as Ariel set off the terrible kiss curse plot, I think it was a good scene for him because it was so raw and vulnerable. He was getting away with it and as far as he knew, Ariel would never have known what really happened, but he chased her down to confess and apologize even though it hurt and even though she'd go from thinking he was a hero to hating him. And it really was a vulnerability because opening up like that was what enabled Zelena to curse him.

[Mari]

With Rumple, there's sometimes a sense that he feels some kind of regret or remorse, and he did apologize to Neal, but he doesn't seem to be trying very hard to set things right or to really change anything, even after achieving his goal. He's also still the master of the universe, in control of way too much for him to be a truly redeemed villain. However, I don't think they're trying to show him as redeemed at all. He's just complex.

I think one of the differences is that Rumple doesn't seem to think of himself as a good person, or a victim.   He's not upset when most people don't like him, as long as they treat him with respect, and he wants to be rewarded with power in one form or another if he helps.

 

The best metaphor I can think of for Rumple would be an old-fashioned gangster.  He knows he's a bad guy, but it's all the cost of doing business, really.  

 

I think he knows his evil actions, and has decided he's not a good man, but a plain-dealing villain, and while that means he's going to do some things he regrets, it's worth it to him because of the power.

 

He'll do what he can, usually, to help out the people he cares about, and he'll do his best to not cause them serious distress--hence Rumple occasionally reigning it in when Belle kicks up enough of a fuss, or him agreeing to help when Neal/Baelfire tells him it's a must.

[Jean]

 

I don't think he'd have magic without the Dark One curse, really. He didn't before it, and as Zelena said, "Magic is a gift." Not just anyone can use it. The only reason he has magic is because of the dagger.

 

 

 

I think he would have magic just like Woegina or Cora. They never said those 2 had a special quality about them that allowed them to do it. They just needed to be taught. Just like Anastasia was taught on Wonderland.  Rumple also had other students besides those 3. Zelena, Emma, and *Elsa seem to be in another category of being born with it. We haven't seen anyone really unable to do magic if they were taught. At the very least they can do spells or use a magical object. Belle cast the spell that hid Storybrook. Snow has cast spells. Jefferson had his portal traveling hat.

[ShadowFacts]

I think if anyone can learn magic, Rumple and Regina would have to worry about peasants getting the necessary spells and objects and books.  It would really mess with their power knowing there could be an underground/resistance of sorts, never knowing who might challenge them or trip them up.  I think the magic has to be more exclusive to fewer people to make it have the menacing effect it does.  Nevertheless, I would like to see those two neutralized after all the evil they have wrought and see if someone else becomes as corrupted as they have.  That would be interesting.

[Jean]

Well I don't think that exclusivity has been established on the show. Anyone who wanted to learn or even just do something requiring magic, was successful. The menacing comes from "magic always come with a price" thing they like to throw out but really don't mean. We've seen people just want to stay away from magic because it has a price. Even Neal was working some pretty fancy magic.

 

Peasants would still need someone willing to teach them and we don't know how many are out there with the knowledge. Rumple seems to be the only one back in the forest. The fairies are the other practioners but they need their wand and dust.

 

I think Rumple is just incredibly confident about the most absolute powerful magic being the Dark Curse. If he was worried about anyone challenging him, he wouldn't bother go around teaching others, whether it was for his benefit or not. Or he would limit the info he gives out and that doesn't seem to be the case. He taught Zelena how to control her magic even though she wasn't going to cast his curse and he wasn't attracted to her. Cora was already powerful and she still wanted the curse's power.

 

Woegina's delusional and not a thinker. She had one thought in her pea-sized brain and that was Kill Snow, so she wouldn't be worried about anything period. Her strategy would just be to kill everyone.

 

I don't think these 2 would ever be neutralized although I wish it would happen. A&E like to use it as an easy out in any situation. Why use their brains and creativity when everything can be solved by magic.

[KAOS Agent]

 

[Rumpel is] also still the master of the universe, in control of way too much for him to be a truly redeemed villain. However, I don't think they're trying to show him as redeemed at all. He's just complex.

 

I've never understood the idea that some people have that Rumpel is redeemed. His sacrifice when he killed himself and Pan would have worked as a final act of redemption and a fitting end to the Dark One had he stayed dead, but he didn't. If he now wants redemption there needs to be atonement and regret and an end to the creepy machinations and that's not going to happen any time soon given what we saw with the fake dagger proposal. 

 

Robert Carlyle has gone on record as saying he doesn't want Rumpel redeemed and while I believe the writers are going to write the show they want, they tend to bend over backwards to make sure that Robert is happy. I also thought it was interesting that when asked his thoughts on whether he believes anyone is safe around Rumpel, his answer was no because he thinks that Rumpel is so addicted to the power that he isn't really capable of putting anything else above it not even Belle. I agree with this assessment of his character and the only reason I don't worry about Belle is because she is a beloved Disney princess and no way in hell would ABC/Disney allow her to become a victim of domestic violence. Everyone else is fair game. 

Edited August 23, 2014 by KAOS Agent

[FurryFury]

Re: magic, the show obviously doesn't give a damn about it, but you could fanwank it into a wizard/sorcerer (Dungeons & Dragons, yes, I'm a nerd) type of thing. Wizards are people who get magic through training, and sorcerers are born with the gift which manifests itself anyway. Both need certain stats to use magic, anyway (so even with training, any peasant can't just start casting spells), but the sorcerer's gift allows them to bypass training (ironically, in the actual game mechanics, wizards were often better, but that's another story). So Cora and Regina were/are wizards, and Zelena and Emma were/are sorcerers.

 

Personally, I'm not sure if Rumple had an innate magical ability. It's never made clear what the Dark One actually is, and until we'll learn this, we can't say for sure. Although I'd prefer it if Rumple wasn't anything special before getting the curse. He was just lucky/unlucky to be the first person Zoso had stumbled upon. 

 

Re: Rumple's redemption, I think 2 redeemed villains in the main cast (3, if you count Hook, but he was never a major villain) is more than enough for one show. If the show commits to Regina the White Knight, Savior of Downtrotten (and it sure seems it has), they need to keep Rumple at least ambiguous, or better yet evil, but not obviously, and not immediately antagonistic. Maybe they'll actually let him slide full-on into villainy in the last season so as not to fear the wrath of Rumbelle shippers - I don't get the sense Adam and Eddy particularly care about Rumbelle, TBH. Maybe they actually regret making them such a big part of the show because they have to realize it really hurts Rumple.

[YaddaYadda]

It's not even funny how far Rumple is being from a real redemption and he's not a character I want redeemed.  What will we call him when he's redeemed, the Light One?  With him it's always the little things that he does where I'm like this guy is absolutely fucked up.  Honestly, making abstraction of the whole dagger business, one of the scenes that I'll always remember was when he wanted to kill Henry.  That's his grandson.  It just showed the levels of selfish.  Rumple had just found his son who was basically refusing to be around him, but he was plenty ok with taking Henry away from Neal because it suited his agenda.

 

When I think back on the scene where he takes out Pan, I think that the sacrifice was really for Bae and no one else.  I don't think Rumple will ever love Belle that much, period.

[Rumsy4]

When I think back on the scene where he takes out Pan, I think that the sacrifice was really for Bae and no one else. I don't think Rumple will ever love Belle that much, period.

I agree. After all, he was ready to let her die along with himself and the rest of the town when Greg/Tamara had activated the Self-destruct. He refused to help stop it because he thought Neal had died.

[Mari]

It's not even funny how far Rumple is being from a real redemption and he's not a character I want redeemed.  What will we call him when he's redeemed, the Light One? 

I don't think we have to worry about that any time soon.  IIRC, he's only been called a hero by Belle--who's delusional--and she was quickly told "No, he's not." by Neal. 

 

Adding in the dagger shenanigans, I don't think he's going to be the Light One for a while.  He'll probably continue to semi-regularly help the Storybrookers because it's in his best interest, or if they decide to push a relationship with Henry, because Henry and Belle want him to.  The rest of the time, I'm expecting some scheming.

[KingOfHearts]

The show sort of established magic in 3B - only people with the gift of magic can use it, not just anyone. That's what Zelena said to the Wizard of Oz, which he affirmed.

[ShadowFacts]

The show sort of established magic in 3B - only people with the gift of magic can use it, not just anyone. That's what Zelena said to the Wizard of Oz, which he affirmed.

 

I hadn't remembered that, but it makes sense that it has to be limited, otherwise it becomes too unwieldy.  There are too many dark-hearted people (like David's adoptive "father" Charles Widmore whose kingly name I cannot remember) who could just coerce a magic practitioner to teach them the trade.  An interesting question to me is what these magical villains could do with their abilities, other than defeating the newest villain to hit Storybrooke.  Now that their original intents have evaporated (reuniting with Bae, harming/killing Snow), what else could they accomplish besides being horrid, snarling, crying menaces to society.  But I guess that would be a different show.

[KingOfHearts]

I hadn't remembered that, but it makes sense that it has to be limited, otherwise it becomes too unwieldy.

 

Here's what they say:

 

Wizard: "Like you, Regina has the gift of magic, but she has been unable to develop it."

 

Zelena: "Magic is a gift..."

 

Wizard: "Yes."

 

I'd say the "gift" is just the ability to do it at all than just a good skill at it, otherwise, Regina would have done better with it if she was specially talented with it.

Edited August 23, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Shanna Marie]

Magic may work kind of like music -- anyone can try singing, whether reading from a hymnal or singing along with the radio. A lot of people are terribly untalented at it and can't carry a tune, so it doesn't come out well, or they need to be singing along with some kind of backup to stay on pitch at all. They might get a little better with training, but without any natural talent, there's a limit to what they can do. They might have to rely on crutches like lip synching or AutoTune to have any success. Then there are people who are born with natural talent -- they may have perfect pitch and the physical requirements for a pleasant voice, and even without training they sound really good when they sing, but they're probably not going to be able to make a career out of it. And then there are the people with natural talent who get training and become wonderful. And there's a range of talent levels and what they're capable of achieving.

 

Regina strikes me as the kind of person who has modest talent and a stage mom -- mom heard her singing with the radio and noticed that she was matching pitches and decided she had the makings of a star, so she got intensive voice lessons with the best teachers and was forced to practice hours every day, so she got to be pretty good but there were still limits to what she could achieve. She might get solo parts in the choir and people wouldn't necessarily cringe when she got up to sing karaoke, but she'd never make it onstage with the Metropolitan Opera.

 

Zelena seems to be the prodigy who just grew up singing beautifully, with perfect pitch, and had no idea that what she did was anything special. Later in life she got a few lessons, and that was enough to push her to some level of greatness, but her personality flaws and inability to let herself really learn from others held her back from really going anywhere with it. She probably sings the national anthem at local sporting events and thinks of herself as a big star.

 

Rumple may be the guy who can't carry a tune in a bucket but has an amazing AutoTune setup so he can produce professional quality recordings.

[KingOfHearts]

But we've never seen anyone on the show use magic who could just do small stuff, though. The people either go all the way (like Zelena, Regina, and Cora) or they have something special that lets them be talented. (Rumple and Emma) Like we haven't seen someone like Charming, for instance, attempt to use magic and only producing a small fraction. Like ShadowFacts said, if anyone could learn magic, there would be more problems. Peasants would be using it to fix their lives.

Edited August 23, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Shanna Marie]

Like ShadowFacts said, if anyone could learn magic, there would be more problems. Peasants would be using it to fix their lives.

This is where their worldbuilding fails because we don't see enough about the peasants to know what they're up to. Though if a peasant fixed his life with magic, he wouldn't be a peasant anymore, would he? Or if it's just small things that most people might be able to do, then the fixes would be small. A peasant may know that saying certain words that his father taught him when he plants his crop means he reaps enough not only to feed his family but to have some left over to sell so he can buy new shoes for his children, or he may be able to calm his cow when milking so she doesn't kick over the bucket and gives more milk, and that allows him to make more butter and cheese. His life is improved, but he's still a peasant. That kind of folk magic could go on without people even realizing that they're using magic or that they have the capacity to do more with it if they tried. That's where resources and examples come in -- if you've never seen anyone using magic, would you know to try doing it? If there's no one to teach you to do a spell that anyone could do, then you can't do that spell, even if you might have the natural capacity. If you don't have access to magical objects that you could use or that could give you power, you don't get the power. It's like literacy. That could improve peasants' lives, but if there's no one to teach you to read and no books to read and no one around you reading, even if you have the mental capacity to read, you're not going to learn to read. Going back to the music metaphor, even if you have the physical capacity for a great voice and perfect pitch, if you've never heard music anywhere, how likely are you to try to sing?

 

But we also don't know what the societal attitudes about magic are. Have we seen a human non-evil magic user in the Enchanted Forest? As far as I can recall, there are the fairies, and then every human who has gained magical powers has either become evil or already was evil. They had to do Curse 2.0 to get to Emma because apparently there were no white magic users in their world (until Regina pulled it out of nowhere -- too bad she and Robin didn't hook up in the Enchanted Forest or they could have saved a lot of trouble). So it's possible that using magic is considered taboo for most people, whether it's stigmatized or feared because the power inevitably corrupts. They might have talent, but they might be afraid of trying.

[Jean]

Yeah but we don't see those peasants. Who knows what they're doing. Besides the writers are intent on selling the idea that magic isn't worth the price you have to pay. Not everyone is willing to pay this mythical price. Note: the dumb people apparently because the joke is there is no price. We haven't seen anyone trying to learn magic and fail.

The Wizard of Oz was Walsh and a total faker. What does he know? I just don't think that 2 lines was meant to establish the magic laws of the show. What I got from that scene was Walsh was just trying to tell Zelena what she wanted to hear. That she wasn't a freak of nature like her stepdad asserted and that she should embrace it instead.

There was magic in Storybrook and Woegina couldn't even access it without Rumple's spellbook.

It just seems weird to me that Belle, Neal, Snow, Jefferson, Walsh, Hook, Tamara, Greg etc. all used magic with zero training that we saw. That's a whole bunch of people. And if the caveat is they're only able to use something that's already magical and cast spells, but can't produce something out of thin air itself then who cares in the long run? Some of those objects are pretty damn powerful and does things that Cora, Rumple etc can't do on their own. Like the magic binding cuffs and the taser. I mean Snow pretty much beat Cora/Woegina with a magic candle and her wits. Tamara killed a magical dragon and she and Greg were able to beat Woegina. To me it's like the magic users just have muscles. The wimpy non-magical people can just go pick up a really big bat, knife, gun, taser etc and use it instead.

No one can open a portal on their own. Rumple couldn't find his kid without that magic GPS globe. A lot of the bigger magic moments on the show have through magical objects, that apparently anyone can use.

Robert Carlyle has gone on record as saying he doesn't want Rumpel redeemed and while I believe the writers are going to write the show they want, they tend to bend over backwards to make sure that Robert is happy.

I don't know if I believe this. He said he didn't think Rumbelle should get married and have babies and they married. No way do I believe he was happy with the Neal story at any point. They screwed up his biggest story in Neal. I think he said he was disappointed that Rumple pretty much ignored him in Storybrook. In the writers book Rumple is probably redeemed.