Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-4962906-20151023123622/@comment-25926288-20151023154410

Farerb wrote: No, not really. I had higher expectations from season 5. I thought that once Emma had become the Dark One, we would have finally see character's emotion, dept, how they deal with Emma becoming the Dark One, how Emma feels and deals with it. Instead we get the same thing whole over again. New characters no one cares about, a quest to find magical mcguffins, going around in circles doing nothing, retconing and getting to plot points without a lot of information of how we got there like if the audience knows something happened than it does not mean that a character should know it and leave it unexplained of how the characters knows something.

Arthur is a badly written character and a villain. They usually make the villains more sympathetic, but I just don't see it here. He pulled a sword from a stone and became a lunatic. I really don't care about him or what he has been through. Even Pan was more sympathetic.

I don't get why people need to compare everything to 4A, but if we're at it, 4A was much much better. Frozen characters were much more interesting than the Camelot's ones. Ingrid was a much more interesting villain than Arthur is.

Lol, high expectations after season 4 shenanigans? Season 4a can be considered more intact because they literally stole the characters from Disney. Ingrid was a lovely character and Elizabeth makes the role, because she's just a tragic version of Elsa. Pretty lazy. I mean if they took Mal from Sleeping Beauty, Ursula from TLM, and Cruella as she was in show, I think they probably would have stood the test of time as well.

You can't say Arthur is badly written because he's not sympathetic, not all villains need to be sympathetic. I think arthur is decent for a non-magical villain.