Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-1916997-20151225192609/@comment-25926288-20151225233224

CoolDudeAl wrote: Eskaver wrote: CoolDudeAl wrote: Farerb wrote: CoolDudeAl wrote: Farerb wrote: I just don't get why is it so hard for people to understand that you can like something and acknowledge its flaws. Just because I don't go around and give praise for every lazy thing they've done doesn't mean I don't like it. When the show is good, it's really good and when it's bad, it's really bad, which makes me understand why people can feel frustrated with it sometimes. I am mostly angry because I can see all the potential they have. A&E are not bad writers, they did give us S1 and a lot of original adaptations of stories we used to know (like Peter Pan - what they did was something that was original and wasn't done before), so I get really angry when they become lazy, when plot doesn't make sense or when characters are just there as instruments ti move the plot along even if it means compromising their development. If I didn't like it then I wouldnt be so passionate about it. Sorry that I don't want to shut my brains off when I want to be entertained or that I have high standards as to what I what I watch, listen or read or that I don't buy the distractions that the show gives its audience to deflect their attention to what it does badly. There is a big difference between acknowledging flaws, and taking shots at the show every chance you get. There within the problem lies. And nothing will ever be 100% perfect to 100% of those that watch, read, listen, etc. to it. What you find as a flaw, I may find as an asset, and vice versa. Plot holes, retcons and character assasination should not be found as assets by anyone. Maybe if they worked harder on their scripts like they used to in the first 2 seasons and a half, it would be harder for me to find its flaws, or not as many as I find now. Those plot holes, retcons, and character assassination are all opinions though. It's not like the writers are intetionally creating problems in their story. Many can be explained away, if you so choose to. Ahem, plot holes and retcons aren't opinions; they are facts. If there is a hole in the plot, then there is a hole, no matter how small. Example of a retcon is Regina and Hook's meeting as it retcons "Queen of Hearts". That is a fact. It's a plot hole that Hook had a potion when Regina specifically enchanted his hook. Those are facts, not opinions.

What is shown onscreen is fact and that's that. If it's left vague, then it isn't a hole, but "Queen of Hearts" left nothing vague. I won't disagree that certain things aren't clunky, but because we don't see every second of interaction in QofH, one can argue that the little escapade with Brennan can fit, or that Hook got the potion from Regina somewhere off screen. I will admit it's clunky, but to say they are plot holes and retcons falls more onto the viewer saying it. The writers give us what happens, we have to make it fit, because it is all canon. If that makes sense. It is at the very least contrived beyond belief. Regina and Hook can't meet up in their QOH attires, then change attires mid-sentence and go on this rendevous and then change attires again and start mid-conversation again. Regina can go changing clothes but Hook doesn't and that goblet he has is the one he has in QOH that Regina serves him.

Noone in their right mind thinks that Regina and Hook go in for a drink--> leave and change clothes---> Spend a day or two apart--->change back into those clothes when the scene doesn't even have a cut in it. Regina specifically goes, killing my mother while Hook drinks, enchants the hoook as well and then plops the hat on the ground. Did she slip a potion of heart ripping in his pocket in the former scenario? Nope.