by XdarksparkX
Originally written: August 17, 2012
In the Fall of 2011, a new genre craze seemed to sweep across our television stations: that of the modernization of classic fairy-tales. Two of the “Big Four” networks rolled out programs based upon this concept, which I suppose only seems like a craze because of the notoriety of these networks, coupled with the fact that you would see a promo for one series and get it confused with the other until proper brand establishment set in.
ABC rolled out Once Upon A Time, a story about a bail bonds collector named Emma who discovers the town of Storybrooke, Maine after the son she gave up for adoption 10-years-ago named Henry shows up on her doorstep and claims he lives there, but that it is also plagued by a curse that only she can lift. She returns him to the town, only to find out that Henry believes that all the people who live there are actually alternate reality versions of various fairy tale characters that Disney has adapted over the past 90 years. Touted as network television’s ‘next big thing’ due to writers of LOST being involved (The question that surely arises—is that really a selling point given the fact that most people claimed it was the eventual convoluted writing of LOST after so many seasons that turned them off from the show?), Once Upon A Time was given a cushy Sunday night 8 PM time slot and a full 22 episode order (from it’s original of 13) after just two episodes had aired, though it did not pick up a second season order until 3 days before the season finale premiere.
NBC’s Grimm on the other hand, had a start up that was much more… well, grim I suppose. Based directly upon the original works of the much darker Grimms’ Fairy Tales than the Disney inspired re-tellings of classic fables, Grimm follows the story of Detective Nick Burkhart, a Portland cop who suddenly discovers that he is a “Grimm”, a line of guardians who are supposed to keep order and balance between the likes of humanity and the fantastical creatures of the Grimm brother’s tales, who disguise themselves as everyday citizens (usually, only a Grimm can see their true form). As his job continues to call him to more bizarre and gruesome crime scenes, Nick starts to realize just how big the population of these creatures is in our world. NBC only seemed to promote Grimm after ABC started running Once Upon A Time’s hype packages and bumps, leading to the initial brand confusion I mentioned earlier. It was given a Friday night slot, a virtual ratings death-sentence for most original dramas, but allegedly had a 22-episode order from the get go and was renewed two months before Once Upon A Time got its second season extension. Rather odd faith in a series (or the show runners) from NBC given the horrific timeslot it was forced to overcome, but I digress.
With Grimm’s return having snuck up on me by premiering on August 13th (much earlier than most fall serial shows), I figured now would be the ideal time to sit down and hammer out my comparison piece on how both shows executed their initial season’s story arcs and character developments.
[OBVIOUS WARNING SHOULD BE OBVIOUS:]
MASSIVE SPOILERS FOR BOTH FIRST SEASONS ARE PRESENT THROUGHOUT.
READ AT YOUR OWN RISK.
MAIN NARRATIVE ARCS
ONCE:
Okay, so I know that it’s obvious that the Emma/Henry/Snow White/Prince Charming/Regina storyline is the primary one given the copious amount of exposition and centric episodes they force us to drudge through before they give someone else the chance to shine in Once, I just wish it didn’t feel like they were trying to force their characters down my throat. Even after they had planted the seed with them and given them their first centric episode, they got secondary visits of some kind extremely quickly whereas there were other more interesting characters around (LOST had the same problem though, Jack or Kate would get two centric episodes before someone like say Jin & Sun or Michael got their first). Perhaps series creators and writers Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz thought that it would be easier for the viewer to follow along if done this way, but really, it came off as I mentioned. In the same breath, I will say that the critical story node—both our introduction to it via in medias res in the Pilot, and the eventual intertwining of characters stories and their roles into it during the finale arc was extremely enjoyable (Episode 20: “The Stranger” is easily my favorite from this arc). I always worry when show’s attempt to do that, because it becomes a very haphazard Jenga construction when you try to tie various characters into such a critical plot thread—one false move and it collapses in spectacular fashion. Once succeeded in this regard with minimal damage done to the structure, which should keep the viewer who prides themselves on logical thinking fairly happy.
+ + +
GRIMM:
Grimm had a little bit of a problem with this. They started out with the usual cadence, but after the introductory arc of the first four episodes or so, they went so far down the path of establishing what being a Grimm meant and what the existence actually entailed that I admittedly forgot about the primary antagonistic group for a third of the season. Nick’s superior officer Captain Renard and the pretense under which he was introduced basically faded away over time as it became more apparent that his agenda had to do with using Nick and not so much Nick’s swift and immediate demise. The Reapers are basically forgotten until they appear once in and regain their prominence in the finale arc. Still, it really tightened up in the latter third of the season, progressing prior arcs like Juliette and Nick’s relationship and the strains his secrecy puts on them, and introducing new ones like Nick’s partner Hank being unable to deny the fact that he has witnessed things that are not of this world, and how—even if everyone around him will deny it—he will have to mentally cope with what he saw for the rest of his life. It advanced to a satisfying cliffhanger, and an eyebrow-raising twist that will surely have people begging for more answers than the Season 2 premiere will be able to contain.
Grimm had a little bit of a problem with this. They started out with the usual cadence, but after the introductory arc of the first four episodes or so, they went so far down the path of establishing what being a Grimm meant and what the existence actually entailed that I admittedly forgot about the primary antagonistic group for a third of the season. Nick’s superior officer Captain Renard and the pretense under which he was introduced basically faded away over time as it became more apparent that his agenda had to do with using Nick and not so much Nick’s swift and immediate demise. The Reapers are basically forgotten until they appear once in and regain their prominence in the finale arc. Still, it really tightened up in the latter third of the season, progressing prior arcs like Juliette and Nick’s relationship and the strains his secrecy puts on them, and introducing new ones like Nick’s partner Hank being unable to deny the fact that he has witnessed things that are not of this world, and how—even if everyone around him will deny it—he will have to mentally cope with what he saw for the rest of his life. It advanced to a satisfying cliffhanger, and an eyebrow-raising twist that will surely have people begging for more answers than the Season 2 premiere will be able to contain.
Once: A-
Grimm: B-
Grimm: B-
SUB PLOTS: SIDE CHARACTER EXPOSITION / ARCS
This really was the biggest strength of both shows in their initial season.
This really was the biggest strength of both shows in their initial season.
ONCE:
Once had an interesting way of dealing with the amount of characters Storybrooke claimed that the show runners wanted to cover. They basically assigned a writer to certain characters (or at least, that’s how it appears when you put the central character and writers credits together through multiple episodes), so that the arcs could claim a certain continuity and flow to them. It’s a move that works in general due to the consistency in which the character’s individual arc sees—it works spectacularly if the given writers have a clear cut concept and inspiration to take the character down a compelling path, and fails epically when the person writing either lacks a true spark to really give us something different, or perhaps just doesn’t “get it”.
That said, Once was able to claim phenomenal character-centric episodes for almost all of its additional characters, starting with the excellent Jiminy Cricket-centric episode “That Still Small Voice”, written by one of my personal favorite writers for the small screen, Buffy alum Jane Espenson. Pretty much any character that was assigned to Jane (Mr. Gold [Rumpelstiltskin], Belle, Ruby [Red Riding Hood], and the aforementioned Jiminy) was given royal treatment in their characterizations and re-imaginings, as she knocked every single one of their origins and back-stories out of the park. (Not to mention, both Ruby and Belle got upgraded to regulars for the second season. Color me giddy.)
With these characters and others such as Grumpy and the Geppetto/Pinocchio pair, Once seemed to always strike a perfect balance between the established pop-culture knowledge and recurring traits of the characters, taking them to a much more interpersonal and subtext ridden place, slowly evolving them over time, adding a dash of maturity, with the occasional claim-of -ownership twist for good measure to create stories that should be the prime examples of what Once intends to be. Suffice to say, those aforementioned character are easily my current favorites on the show given their psychological depth and excellent progressions of their origins. Even the weaker sub plot arcs like Cinderella don’t bring down what the show was achieving at its peak when it was handling the residents of Storybrooke with a stroke of creative flair and narrative intrigue.
That said, Once was able to claim phenomenal character-centric episodes for almost all of its additional characters, starting with the excellent Jiminy Cricket-centric episode “That Still Small Voice”, written by one of my personal favorite writers for the small screen, Buffy alum Jane Espenson. Pretty much any character that was assigned to Jane (Mr. Gold [Rumpelstiltskin], Belle, Ruby [Red Riding Hood], and the aforementioned Jiminy) was given royal treatment in their characterizations and re-imaginings, as she knocked every single one of their origins and back-stories out of the park. (Not to mention, both Ruby and Belle got upgraded to regulars for the second season. Color me giddy.)
I took notice because of her looks, I stuck around because of her kick-ass origin.
With these characters and others such as Grumpy and the Geppetto/Pinocchio pair, Once seemed to always strike a perfect balance between the established pop-culture knowledge and recurring traits of the characters, taking them to a much more interpersonal and subtext ridden place, slowly evolving them over time, adding a dash of maturity, with the occasional claim-of -ownership twist for good measure to create stories that should be the prime examples of what Once intends to be. Suffice to say, those aforementioned character are easily my current favorites on the show given their psychological depth and excellent progressions of their origins. Even the weaker sub plot arcs like Cinderella don’t bring down what the show was achieving at its peak when it was handling the residents of Storybrooke with a stroke of creative flair and narrative intrigue.
+ + +
GRIMM:
Grimm was no slouch here either. Monroe is simply one of the best comic-relief characters on television right now. He's a Blutbad (werewolf) who runs into Nick in the Pilot episode when Nick mistakenly assumes him to be the suspect in the disappearance case he's investigating. After the misunderstanding is cleared up, the two discuss the history of the Grimms and Wesen, Monroe amazed to meet a Grimm in person (and live to tell the tale, it seems most Grimms that proceeded Nick killed first and asked questions never). The arc he and Nick subsequently go through felt both believable and surprisingly satisfying when you witness the eventual dynamic and mutual respect the characters grow to have for each other. With obvious implications that he and Nick’s budding friendship is going to be catalytic in more ways than one as the series progresses, you really couldn’t ask for more out of a “buddy cop movie” type of partnership.
Even though he was pretty much relegated to being “the contrast of Nick’s life, primarily through the direct character contrast between him and Monroe” for a majority of the season, the arc that they started up roughly 15 episodes in that slowly began dragging Hank into the world of Grimms and Wesen was very well done. I also thoroughly enjoy Juliette’s character, and the slow burn the writers are using so that we as a viewer fall for her more and more as time goes on in the same vein Nick did is a beloved display of patience and care of viewer investment on the writers part. It’s also something that scares the hell out of me, mainly because I’ve seen it used as a setup for something truly horrific to befall the character in question. I can recall one particular instance where I felt this type of interest and elation at seeing where the writers would take a side-character’s growth and watching them evolve through various arcs: Amy Acker in the Buffy spin-off Angel as Winifred Burkle, and those of you who watched the entire series know exactly what that sick bastard Joss Whedon did to THAT character after we had fallen ass-over-teakettle for her. (It doesn’t help that one of the show’s creators, David Greenwalt, is a former Buffy/Angel producer. Fucking Whedon, he’s made me into the most paranoid bastard whenever I start liking characters. Partially related side-note: Amy Acker had guest roles in both shows, so that makes them both winners to some extent in my book regardless of the letter-grade outcomes).
[L-R: Monroe, Nick]
“Last time I protected someone for you, it was not exactly a pleasant experience. How is that guy by the way? Were they able to sew his arm back on?”
“Last time I protected someone for you, it was not exactly a pleasant experience. How is that guy by the way? Were they able to sew his arm back on?”
Even though he was pretty much relegated to being “the contrast of Nick’s life, primarily through the direct character contrast between him and Monroe” for a majority of the season, the arc that they started up roughly 15 episodes in that slowly began dragging Hank into the world of Grimms and Wesen was very well done. I also thoroughly enjoy Juliette’s character, and the slow burn the writers are using so that we as a viewer fall for her more and more as time goes on in the same vein Nick did is a beloved display of patience and care of viewer investment on the writers part. It’s also something that scares the hell out of me, mainly because I’ve seen it used as a setup for something truly horrific to befall the character in question. I can recall one particular instance where I felt this type of interest and elation at seeing where the writers would take a side-character’s growth and watching them evolve through various arcs: Amy Acker in the Buffy spin-off Angel as Winifred Burkle, and those of you who watched the entire series know exactly what that sick bastard Joss Whedon did to THAT character after we had fallen ass-over-teakettle for her. (It doesn’t help that one of the show’s creators, David Greenwalt, is a former Buffy/Angel producer. Fucking Whedon, he’s made me into the most paranoid bastard whenever I start liking characters. Partially related side-note: Amy Acker had guest roles in both shows, so that makes them both winners to some extent in my book regardless of the letter-grade outcomes).
I know what you’re thinking of pulling with this character, Greenwalt.
Don't you fucking dare...
The only problem I can find with the Grimm gang is a bit too often it became obvious that they were more tools for Nick to use rather than actually their own characters at times. Rosalee (a young woman who comes into the show about halfway through the season and winds up running her brother’s spice shop after he’s murdered) became the convenient mythical spell remedy guru; Monroe was the go-to guy for creature-of-the-week exposition (the show even mentions this point in a bit of slight meta-humor, when after the umpteenth time of being asked if he knew about a certain type of Wesen, Monroe turns to Nick and says “what am I, your personal Grimmopedia?”); Nick and Hank’s co-worker Sergeant Wu was the snarky bastard who you were just waiting for something to happen to. Mainly because he would be oblivious to it until the effects took hold, and when they did it would allow Nick and company to have an up-close and easily containable victim of the otherworldly ailment, because you knew there would be no reason to give him all this screen time if he wasn’t going to contribute to the supernatural side of the show in SOME way. The Scooby Gang from Buffy evolved into that slowly over time, whereas it just kind of quickly became that in Grimm. Slightly predictable in that sense, and that’s really the one thing that knocks it down a peg.
Once: A-
Grimm: B+
Once: A-
Grimm: B+
THE PRIMARY ANTAGONISTS
However, if the Sub-Plots and Side Character Arcs were the universal strength between the shows, then Primary Antagonists Arcs were the precise antithesis; the yin to that yang.
However, if the Sub-Plots and Side Character Arcs were the universal strength between the shows, then Primary Antagonists Arcs were the precise antithesis; the yin to that yang.
ONCE:
This is really primarily a point because of Once Upon A Time’s unbelievable failure in this department. I won’t beat around the bush here: The Evil Queen’s origin arc made her the LAMEST primary antagonist the show could have.
I don’t give two shits if the guys who write her narrative arc are the sole reason the show even exists in the first place, they are being upstaged and shown how you do this shit right on an international stage by people they’ve hired on who can write FAR better tragic back-stories with far more logical psychological progression for characters who are conflicted by their circumstances. Jane Espenson ALONE completely decimated their attempts to make the Evil Queen sympathetic with her fantastic arcs for Mr. Gold and Ruby. This bothers me because these same two men are the ones who are credited with writing the fantastic Grumpy-centric episode, “Dreamy”. It’s an absolute mind-numbing conundrum how they could manage to botch their PRIMARY ANTAGONIST, while giving a second-tier side character such a phenomenal tragedy-based origin.
And the crazy thing is, I called this from the outset. I’ve been ranting about this since the second episode in.
That’s right, I’ve had a problem with Regina/The Evil Queen since her first centric episode “The Thing You Love Most”. In it, we find out the price she paid in order to have The Dark Curse (aka “LOST Smoke Monster II: Purple Electric Boogaloo”) befall the Enchanted Realm and send all of its residents to Storybrooke—or “A Land Without Magic” as they put it. She kills her father—stabs him with a knife no less, so it’s not like she went about this in an impersonal way—but tries to give this “I’m so heartbroken over doing this, don’t you viewers pity my choices?” face. No, because YOU STILL MADE THE CHOICE YOU SO RESENT. Call me when the well-being of something of legitimately innocent (no, your moral compass does NOT count as currency here) is somehow involved in whether or not you commit your next despicable act, on the road mind you to doing something you admit is going to destroy everyone’s happiness. If NO ONE was happy, and their happiness was taken away due to say a balancing act by the world or something for Charming bringing Snow back from the dead with the kiss (thereby making Snow White’s happy ending the lone in-your-face exception), then MAYBE I could see her logic path of wanting to be a Queen who does right by her people, but is conflicted due to the cost of the curse and what it could bring about (doubtful, but still). Alas, it wasn’t. The entire desire to curse the Enchanted Realm was based on a pathetic and pitiful warpath of vengeance directed towards a girl who—within the most skewed outlook—“wronged” her.
I blame Magneto for the seething hatred I have for this character. No, I seriously do. I feel that thanks to Bryan Singer’s first two X-Men films, he is one of the best anti-villain characters around that you can easily reference so that people are able to quickly grasp why exactly you have a problem with a villain who does horrible acts with flighty motives. The fact that he does what he does not because he wants to be “evil” or a dick, but because of the outlook that his back-story caused that makes him believe that what he’s doing is right is the freaking blueprint for how to write a believable antagonist. It’s a basic rule of thumb in good literature: unless your antagonist is meant to be a manifestation of pure evil, there has to be a thread of connection or understanding from the audience to the antagonist (even in the slightest of terms). The primary way to do this, the antagonist MUST have either a strong conviction (usually to the point of delusion) to what they’re doing, with the cause of delusion being something the audience can easily accept or understand; or they must become who they are by sheer circumstance. This is especially true when you have a show like this that claims a copious amount of compelling characters getting tragic origins that allow us to understand their psyche (again, the fact that they did this perfectly in the Grumpy episode continues to baffle my mind). They didn’t do any of this with the Evil Queen, she garners zero connection or understanding due to the sheer logical fallacy from which her motives are derived.
The killer was, it only got worse from there.
She falls for the Genie (who she eventually turns into her Magic Mirror), “frames” him (ha! puns...) for the murder of her husband that SHE committed (once again using the “it hurts me soo badd” face behind the affected character’s back, before whirling around and acting cold and heartless to one of the few people to truly give two shits about her), and has nothing but contempt in her eyes when he’s begging for a reason as to why she did it. And then comes the episode centric to her hate for Snow, “The Stable Boy”.
Once upon a time, before the Queen (sans “Evil” prefix) gained her claim to royalty, she was a young girl named Regina and deeply in love with a stable boy named Daniel. For reasons likely of ye olde political bullshit (like “you’re supposed to marry for power, you kitchen-dwelling baby-oven”), her mother wants to force her into marrying Snow White’s father King Leopold, after Regina saves the young girl from her runaway horse. Regina’s mother Cora does not approve of Daniel (obviously). She is also a callous, emotionally bankrupt, magically inclined BITCH who manipulates people as if it was her God-given ability.
Despite this disapproval, Regina runs to Daniel to tell him that they should run away together and never look back. It’s a classic Romeo & Juliet tale… until they decided to start making out in the stable that little Snow White happens to wander into. Regina gives chase to the fleeing youth and explains that she doesn’t love Snow’s father, she loves Daniel. After some convincing, Snow White understands and is happy for Regina because she found “twuu wuvv”, and agrees to keep this a secret.
Of course, Cora comes into the picture, and manipulates the naive little girl into revealing the true reason for Regina’s unhappiness, with promises of nothing but concern and love for Regina’s well-being (because that’s what master manipulators do. Adults fall for that shit, what hope does a wide-eyed child who thinks the world is a decent place have?) She then proceeds to stop Regina and Daniel just before they can sneak off into the night from the stables in their runaway attempt. Cora once again flexes her manipulation muscle and says “you can go if you like Regina”, and then goes over to Daniel and says “always do what’s best for your children”. What she actually means by that is RIP OUT THE HEART OF THE BOY YOUR DAUGHTER LOVES IF YOU DON’T APPROVE! Of course, with her only reason for running now maggot food, Regina bends to her mother’s will and marries Leopold.
And who is the obvious basis of hatred after reading that? Why, the CHILD of course. Never mind that you just watched your own mother input Back-Back-Low Punch for the Heart Rip Fatality, no, clearly the child who was tricked by the manipulating adult is the one to blame.
A child. She chose to hold a grudge against a looks-about-8-years-of-age child because her mother is a sadistic bitch. A sadistic bitch who’s dancing around with your lover’s HEART IN HER HAND saying “nanny-nanny-boo-boo / no-happiness-for-youu / he’s-nothing-more-than-horse-poo” and the first thing you do is clench your fist, turn away and say “curse you, hopefully little child”? NO! Fuck you MOM for being a controlling, batshit crazy, festering sore of human existence! For that amazing bout of stupid alone Regina should go die in a ditch. She can be with Daniel, and we won’t have to endure any more “bawwing” from this dumb broad. Win all the way around.
The sad thing is, Regina is actually a pretty good antagonist in Storybrooke (like, teeth grindingly annoying in the way an antagonist is supposed to be), but not even that can save her from the completely inept reasoning behind why they are all in Storybrooke in the first place, and the abhorrent acts she commits to see the curse through so she can extract vengeance on a young woman who possessed the naiveté of a little girl when she was...
a little girl. Fail, fail, fail.
GRIMM:
That whole rant has taken a lot out of me, and with Grimm the real problem is both the lack of a consistent threat from the alleged Primary Antagonists, and the aforementioned disappearance of them from the main arc in the middle of the season. The Reapers (supposedly fearsome people who hunt Grimms down) finally run into Nick in one of the last episodes of the season and get properly dispatched in the span of a fifteen minute fight scene, with Nick barely batting an eyelash. Legitimate threat my ass, Nick actually trolls the guy who sent them by sending their heads back in a box. BAMF point for the Grimm, but a Fail point for the Reaper Keeper.
I can’t really include Captain Renard yet because his motives are unclear and he has yet to actually directly “antagonize” our protagonist, lest we count the few BS missions he sent Adelaide on. Really, the only thing that keeps this section above water for Grimm is the Hexenbiest Adelaide. She first attempted to take out Nick’s Aunt Marie (who passed the knowledge of the Grimms and her stash of miscellany down to him) early in the season, and then successfully cursed Juliette in the finale arc before Nick finally stripped the crazy witch of her powers.
Once: F
Grimm: D+
SECONDARY ANTAGONISTS
ONCE:
Now that I think about it, Once didn’t really seem to have any secondary antagonists (well, none worthy of legitimate mention that weren’t mere one-episode bumps in the road in Storybrooke). One could argue a case for Mr. Gold, but it’s hard for me to label him a straight antagonist, maybe because his phenomenal back-story didn’t do much in the way of making him an easily dis-likeable antagonistic, but more a pity worthy figure of tragedy. I’d probably prefer to give him the label of tritagonist before I gave him one of antagonist. Still, I guess given his actions overall being primarily shady, including those in the finale, I’ll count him, which bumps the grade up a tick.
Other than that, there where occasional ones in the Enchanted Realm, like The Blind Witch and Maleficent, but they were both fleeting bits with little to no actual use in the overall story (Maleficent was basically relegated to the role of “Conveniently Deadly Storage Locker / Last Level Boss Battle” for the season finale episode “A Land Without Magic”). Funny how the lack of secondary antagonists worked out, because more of them could’ve helped take my mind off of the abhorrent primary antagonist they kept trying to shove down my throat as if she had legitimate motives.
GRIMM:
As for Grimm, this was obviously one of it’s initial strengths given the fact that each episode was more often than not about a fabled creature from the pages of Grimms’ Fairy Tales stepping out of line in a hostile manner and giving Nick shit when he eventually tracked them down. The creature variety, coupled with the solid arcs they were given and the lack of ham-fisting the exposition each required is what really allowed me the fun curiosity of wondering which character would be Nick find himself at odds with in the subsequent episode (This basically worked in stark contrast to Once, where it was “who will be the protagonist in the flashback” as opposed to “who will be the antagonist of the week”). The only problem was the fact that they actually started overshadowing the Primary Antagonists a bit too much in the middle of the season as previously stated, to the point where it almost felt like the episodes had a cadence akin to an episode of Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers than a major network primetime serial drama. However, this feeling for me only lasted an episode or two, at which point they put the wheels in motion for the finale arc, and the symptoms vanished rather quickly. The obvious note of “it also helps that Nick doesn’t know anything about them, so learning along with him helps the audience connect to him” aside, they handled it just about as best they could with minor slip ups or falters.
Once: C+
Grimm: B
[A solid opening season with a good, yet somewhat predictable cadence that did well in establishing the universe, with a fantastic finale arc that gave us an intriguing cliff hanger to keep us wanting more.]
I am unsure if I will do this article again for Season 2 of the shows, but I will say that both are off to a very good start despite their initial flaws and failings, and I am very interested to see where both shows go with the introductory phase out of the equation.
Grimm’s second season currently airs Mondays at 10/9c on NBC.
I don’t give two shits if the guys who write her narrative arc are the sole reason the show even exists in the first place, they are being upstaged and shown how you do this shit right on an international stage by people they’ve hired on who can write FAR better tragic back-stories with far more logical psychological progression for characters who are conflicted by their circumstances. Jane Espenson ALONE completely decimated their attempts to make the Evil Queen sympathetic with her fantastic arcs for Mr. Gold and Ruby. This bothers me because these same two men are the ones who are credited with writing the fantastic Grumpy-centric episode, “Dreamy”. It’s an absolute mind-numbing conundrum how they could manage to botch their PRIMARY ANTAGONIST, while giving a second-tier side character such a phenomenal tragedy-based origin.
And the crazy thing is, I called this from the outset. I’ve been ranting about this since the second episode in.
That’s right, I’ve had a problem with Regina/The Evil Queen since her first centric episode “The Thing You Love Most”. In it, we find out the price she paid in order to have The Dark Curse (aka “LOST Smoke Monster II: Purple Electric Boogaloo”) befall the Enchanted Realm and send all of its residents to Storybrooke—or “A Land Without Magic” as they put it. She kills her father—stabs him with a knife no less, so it’s not like she went about this in an impersonal way—but tries to give this “I’m so heartbroken over doing this, don’t you viewers pity my choices?” face. No, because YOU STILL MADE THE CHOICE YOU SO RESENT. Call me when the well-being of something of legitimately innocent (no, your moral compass does NOT count as currency here) is somehow involved in whether or not you commit your next despicable act, on the road mind you to doing something you admit is going to destroy everyone’s happiness. If NO ONE was happy, and their happiness was taken away due to say a balancing act by the world or something for Charming bringing Snow back from the dead with the kiss (thereby making Snow White’s happy ending the lone in-your-face exception), then MAYBE I could see her logic path of wanting to be a Queen who does right by her people, but is conflicted due to the cost of the curse and what it could bring about (doubtful, but still). Alas, it wasn’t. The entire desire to curse the Enchanted Realm was based on a pathetic and pitiful warpath of vengeance directed towards a girl who—within the most skewed outlook—“wronged” her.
With all due respect Your Highness, you’re as stupid as your outfit is superfluous.
I blame Magneto for the seething hatred I have for this character. No, I seriously do. I feel that thanks to Bryan Singer’s first two X-Men films, he is one of the best anti-villain characters around that you can easily reference so that people are able to quickly grasp why exactly you have a problem with a villain who does horrible acts with flighty motives. The fact that he does what he does not because he wants to be “evil” or a dick, but because of the outlook that his back-story caused that makes him believe that what he’s doing is right is the freaking blueprint for how to write a believable antagonist. It’s a basic rule of thumb in good literature: unless your antagonist is meant to be a manifestation of pure evil, there has to be a thread of connection or understanding from the audience to the antagonist (even in the slightest of terms). The primary way to do this, the antagonist MUST have either a strong conviction (usually to the point of delusion) to what they’re doing, with the cause of delusion being something the audience can easily accept or understand; or they must become who they are by sheer circumstance. This is especially true when you have a show like this that claims a copious amount of compelling characters getting tragic origins that allow us to understand their psyche (again, the fact that they did this perfectly in the Grumpy episode continues to baffle my mind). They didn’t do any of this with the Evil Queen, she garners zero connection or understanding due to the sheer logical fallacy from which her motives are derived.
The killer was, it only got worse from there.
She falls for the Genie (who she eventually turns into her Magic Mirror), “frames” him (ha! puns...) for the murder of her husband that SHE committed (once again using the “it hurts me soo badd” face behind the affected character’s back, before whirling around and acting cold and heartless to one of the few people to truly give two shits about her), and has nothing but contempt in her eyes when he’s begging for a reason as to why she did it. And then comes the episode centric to her hate for Snow, “The Stable Boy”.
Once upon a time, before the Queen (sans “Evil” prefix) gained her claim to royalty, she was a young girl named Regina and deeply in love with a stable boy named Daniel. For reasons likely of ye olde political bullshit (like “you’re supposed to marry for power, you kitchen-dwelling baby-oven”), her mother wants to force her into marrying Snow White’s father King Leopold, after Regina saves the young girl from her runaway horse. Regina’s mother Cora does not approve of Daniel (obviously). She is also a callous, emotionally bankrupt, magically inclined BITCH who manipulates people as if it was her God-given ability.
Despite this disapproval, Regina runs to Daniel to tell him that they should run away together and never look back. It’s a classic Romeo & Juliet tale… until they decided to start making out in the stable that little Snow White happens to wander into. Regina gives chase to the fleeing youth and explains that she doesn’t love Snow’s father, she loves Daniel. After some convincing, Snow White understands and is happy for Regina because she found “twuu wuvv”, and agrees to keep this a secret.
Of course, Cora comes into the picture, and manipulates the naive little girl into revealing the true reason for Regina’s unhappiness, with promises of nothing but concern and love for Regina’s well-being (because that’s what master manipulators do. Adults fall for that shit, what hope does a wide-eyed child who thinks the world is a decent place have?) She then proceeds to stop Regina and Daniel just before they can sneak off into the night from the stables in their runaway attempt. Cora once again flexes her manipulation muscle and says “you can go if you like Regina”, and then goes over to Daniel and says “always do what’s best for your children”. What she actually means by that is RIP OUT THE HEART OF THE BOY YOUR DAUGHTER LOVES IF YOU DON’T APPROVE! Of course, with her only reason for running now maggot food, Regina bends to her mother’s will and marries Leopold.
And who is the obvious basis of hatred after reading that? Why, the CHILD of course. Never mind that you just watched your own mother input Back-Back-Low Punch for the Heart Rip Fatality, no, clearly the child who was tricked by the manipulating adult is the one to blame.
You call it malicious intent, everyone with active brain cells calls it childhood naiveté.
A child. She chose to hold a grudge against a looks-about-8-years-of-age child because her mother is a sadistic bitch. A sadistic bitch who’s dancing around with your lover’s HEART IN HER HAND saying “nanny-nanny-boo-boo / no-happiness-for-youu / he’s-nothing-more-than-horse-poo” and the first thing you do is clench your fist, turn away and say “curse you, hopefully little child”? NO! Fuck you MOM for being a controlling, batshit crazy, festering sore of human existence! For that amazing bout of stupid alone Regina should go die in a ditch. She can be with Daniel, and we won’t have to endure any more “bawwing” from this dumb broad. Win all the way around.
The sad thing is, Regina is actually a pretty good antagonist in Storybrooke (like, teeth grindingly annoying in the way an antagonist is supposed to be), but not even that can save her from the completely inept reasoning behind why they are all in Storybrooke in the first place, and the abhorrent acts she commits to see the curse through so she can extract vengeance on a young woman who possessed the naiveté of a little girl when she was...
a little girl. Fail, fail, fail.
+ + +
GRIMM:
That whole rant has taken a lot out of me, and with Grimm the real problem is both the lack of a consistent threat from the alleged Primary Antagonists, and the aforementioned disappearance of them from the main arc in the middle of the season. The Reapers (supposedly fearsome people who hunt Grimms down) finally run into Nick in one of the last episodes of the season and get properly dispatched in the span of a fifteen minute fight scene, with Nick barely batting an eyelash. Legitimate threat my ass, Nick actually trolls the guy who sent them by sending their heads back in a box. BAMF point for the Grimm, but a Fail point for the Reaper Keeper.
I’m surprised Nick didn’t go for the ultimate troll attempt and have the note say “All your base are belong to us.”
I can’t really include Captain Renard yet because his motives are unclear and he has yet to actually directly “antagonize” our protagonist, lest we count the few BS missions he sent Adelaide on. Really, the only thing that keeps this section above water for Grimm is the Hexenbiest Adelaide. She first attempted to take out Nick’s Aunt Marie (who passed the knowledge of the Grimms and her stash of miscellany down to him) early in the season, and then successfully cursed Juliette in the finale arc before Nick finally stripped the crazy witch of her powers.
Once: F
Grimm: D+
SECONDARY ANTAGONISTS
ONCE:
Now that I think about it, Once didn’t really seem to have any secondary antagonists (well, none worthy of legitimate mention that weren’t mere one-episode bumps in the road in Storybrooke). One could argue a case for Mr. Gold, but it’s hard for me to label him a straight antagonist, maybe because his phenomenal back-story didn’t do much in the way of making him an easily dis-likeable antagonistic, but more a pity worthy figure of tragedy. I’d probably prefer to give him the label of tritagonist before I gave him one of antagonist. Still, I guess given his actions overall being primarily shady, including those in the finale, I’ll count him, which bumps the grade up a tick.
“I’m a difficult man to love...”
Not when Jane Espenson writes your back-story...
Other than that, there where occasional ones in the Enchanted Realm, like The Blind Witch and Maleficent, but they were both fleeting bits with little to no actual use in the overall story (Maleficent was basically relegated to the role of “Conveniently Deadly Storage Locker / Last Level Boss Battle” for the season finale episode “A Land Without Magic”). Funny how the lack of secondary antagonists worked out, because more of them could’ve helped take my mind off of the abhorrent primary antagonist they kept trying to shove down my throat as if she had legitimate motives.
+ + +
GRIMM:
As for Grimm, this was obviously one of it’s initial strengths given the fact that each episode was more often than not about a fabled creature from the pages of Grimms’ Fairy Tales stepping out of line in a hostile manner and giving Nick shit when he eventually tracked them down. The creature variety, coupled with the solid arcs they were given and the lack of ham-fisting the exposition each required is what really allowed me the fun curiosity of wondering which character would be Nick find himself at odds with in the subsequent episode (This basically worked in stark contrast to Once, where it was “who will be the protagonist in the flashback” as opposed to “who will be the antagonist of the week”). The only problem was the fact that they actually started overshadowing the Primary Antagonists a bit too much in the middle of the season as previously stated, to the point where it almost felt like the episodes had a cadence akin to an episode of Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers than a major network primetime serial drama. However, this feeling for me only lasted an episode or two, at which point they put the wheels in motion for the finale arc, and the symptoms vanished rather quickly. The obvious note of “it also helps that Nick doesn’t know anything about them, so learning along with him helps the audience connect to him” aside, they handled it just about as best they could with minor slip ups or falters.
Once: C+
Grimm: B
OVERALL GRADES—SEASON ONE
Once: B-
(A-; A-; F; C+)
[It shined brilliantly in certain categories, but completely failing in a critical area drags the overall grade down. I guess the use of the catchphrase “From the writers of LOST” had a bit of karma attached to it.]
[It shined brilliantly in certain categories, but completely failing in a critical area drags the overall grade down. I guess the use of the catchphrase “From the writers of LOST” had a bit of karma attached to it.]
Grimm: B
(B-; B+; D+; B)[A solid opening season with a good, yet somewhat predictable cadence that did well in establishing the universe, with a fantastic finale arc that gave us an intriguing cliff hanger to keep us wanting more.]
I am unsure if I will do this article again for Season 2 of the shows, but I will say that both are off to a very good start despite their initial flaws and failings, and I am very interested to see where both shows go with the introductory phase out of the equation.
Grimm’s second season currently airs Mondays at 10/9c on NBC.
Once Upon A Time’s second season starts Sunday, September 30th at 8/7c on ABC.
(Dates and times are accurate as of this writing [8/17/2012])
(Dates and times are accurate as of this writing [8/17/2012])
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment