FANDOM


  • I suppose Arthur is the true villain of 5A. I think he's only interested in taking the dagger to complete the sword, and will use his Hero cover to make believe his intention are pure.

    Emma will I guess, somehow discover it. But beeing the dark one means she will be less reliable than she was as a savior, and Arthur will probably use this opportunity to discredit her. Snowing and regina are sometimes ungrateful, and Emma seeing them don't trust her after all she did to save everyone, will finally let the darkness consume her. This could explain her attitude to regina in the sneak peak for 5x02. She clearly want Regina to live wath she's been through. This is typical of vengeful and misunderstood people. The show is reinterpreting tales to recall our reality. And since saison 4 this is all about role switching, trust and hope. The villain beeing the hero, the hero beeing the villain. The idea of trusting in people we're supposed to love. It's like popular people pretending to preach goodness while unpopular and misunderstood ones, are condemned for heros mistakes. This is how half of antagonists are made in our world.

    So wath do you think about that theory?

      Preparing Editor Spell
    • I actually like the part about Arthur.  I was thinking something similar.

      Probably works something like this:

      1. Regina reveals that she has the DO Dagger. (Not intentionally or maliciously).

      2. Arthur gets the idea to steal the dagger in order to complete Excalibur.

      3. Emma finds out, and somehow gets involved with Excalibur (which may be the excess baggage they find in Episode 2).

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Yeah, I think that Arthur may be a villain as well. In the latest 5x02 sneak peek he seems to be acting a little weird. And his casting call says that he is manipulative and that he holds grudges. They wouldn't put those things in there for no reason, so I think it will come into play eventually.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • I think it is something much more complex, than simply being about heros and villains. The Camelot arc may finally show castle politics, and the pressures of ruling a kingdom. While Arthur might be acting shady, to him Emma is nothing more than the Dark One. He does not know her as anything else, other than a demon that needs to be stopped.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • I don't think he will be a full out villain, but I don't think he will be a complete hero. The whole thing with Excalibur makes me think that he is going to do whatever it takes to get his hands on it.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • I hope that Arthur is the main villain in the show. I think we need a good male villain again. Last main male villain other then Rumple was Peter Pan and he was a child so he was not really all that scary. I imagine he will be similar to King George but with more a nice guy front who easily manipulates his enemies.

      I do agree in part with ChocolateEyes613 that it may be more complex and perhaps he has become this darker character is because he has been plagued by the serious conflicts that arise from ruling a kingdom. plus of course the realisation his wife has betrayed his heart and he cant not really trust his knights (or at least I wuld not trust them 100%). I also get the feeling that he is responsible for kidnapping Merida's brothers. 

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • I think he will steal the dagger and will complete Excalibur

      Using Excalibur will control Emma and will force Hook, Charming and Robin to go against her

      By the way, I think he remembers everything about what happened in the 6 weeks gap

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Does anyone else think Arthur is a little bit more suspicious after that ending?

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • I think first we should learn what exactly happened in camelot. I wouldn't be too suprised if Arthur turned out to be a villian, or that he was responsible for this new curse. But I think they won't defeat him until 5b. 5a they will deal with Emma and then find out he is a villian. 

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Hydrasaur wrote: I think first we should learn what exactly happened in camelot. I wouldn't be too suprised if Arthur turned out to be a villian, or that he was responsible for this new curse. But I think they won't defeat him until 5b. 5a they will deal with Emma and then find out he is a villian. 

      I think that Guinevere is gonna be a villain this season. Its just the way she looks at the sword every time she's around it. I might just be reading into things, but she seriously looks like she wants that sword for herself.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • I thought that too! And how worried she was when she learned it was missing! I think that Arthur and Guinevere are not to be trusted. They might want the Excalibur whole, but I don't think they care about the damage they might cause doing so.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Commenting on Guinivere as a potential villian is off topic, and deserves its own thread.

      As for Arthur, Yes he wants Excalibur whole again, and I think he would probably go to great lengths to achieve that end. But his desire appears to be in line with Merlin's prophecy. There is nothing villainous about that.  I think Arthur, just like the current characters, is going to be developed to be more 3 Dimensional, and have just a bit of darkness go go along with the light and nobility we would expect.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • The Darkness said that re-merging Excalibur will snuff out the light. That seems to imply that whoever holds the full Excalibur will be given some form of immense power, right? Now, there's the chance that Arthur doesn't know this, and that he just wants it whole because it looks prettier that way or something stupid, but it seems to make more sense that he knows he can become all-powerful if he wields the full Excalibur.

      Or, maybe he doesn't, and maybe Guinevere does and she's just using him. But Arthur's casting call seems to imply that he knows.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • MasterofCows wrote:
      Does anyone else think Arthur is a little bit more suspicious after that ending?

      Honestly, I thought Guinevere was more suspicious than Arthur.

      Arthur probably knows that Excalibur wields great power, if made whole again. He probably does not know, that the sword possesses the darkest of magic. 

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Actually, and this is only slightly off topic, I got the impression that a whole Excalibur wields great power.  In Arthur's hands, it is not necessarily Dark.  But in Emma's (or any other DO) hands, it becomes a weapon of great darkness. Basically, the sword is an extension of the wielder.

      I don't see Arthur as "Shady" as much as just a typical Legendary King, with a little extra dimension added.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Hmcooper4 wrote:

      I don't see Arthur as "Shady" as much as just a typical Legendary King, with a little extra dimension added.

      Agreed.... with 5.04 being titled The Broken Kingdom, it is possible that Camelot was war-torn without a ruler. 

      Arthur probably had very good intentions, when he set out to become king. The temptations of Excalibur's power and and the pressures of ruling, seem to be taking their toll on his psyche. It probably does not help that his wife cheated on him, with his best friend. I also got the impression, that Arthur wanted Camelot to be a kind of utopia.

      Merlin may have predicted, that Arthur become king by removing Excalibur from the stone. That does not mean, the sword was meant to made whole again. It is going to be an interesting twist on the term, The Once and Future King.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • What if Emma is the TRUE villain of this season, instead of Arthur or Guinevere? If she's not, what is the point of this story arc?

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • I think both Arthur and Gwen are kind of shady. We'll have to see just how shady based on what they do in future episodes. They both seem very determined to complete Excaliber though, and whould probably do bad things to do so.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • For all we know Arthur was the one who put Excalibur back into the stone, when Emma fully embraced the Darkness.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • CTrent29 wrote:
      What if Emma is the TRUE villain of this season, instead of Arthur or Guinevere? If she's not, what is the point of this story arc?

      You mean like how the Queens of Darkness were the true villains of the Queens of Darkness arc?

      ...

      ...Oh wait.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Ok, I have it figured out.  The TRUE villian of the the arc is...

      RED HERRING!

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Hmcooper4 wrote:
      Ok, I have it figured out.  The TRUE villian of the the arc is...

      RED HERRING!

      I knew it.... and he would have gotten away with it too, if it were not for those meddling kids and their pet dog!

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • I think we have our answer... maybe he's not the big villain for 5A but he's up there.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • He is the big bad villain! He attempts to lead the Camelotians to create a new Camelot in Storybrooke. I already have this feeling he will be going after Merida's kingdom as a reference to the Anglo-Scottish Wars.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Xavenger wrote:
      He is the big bad villain! He attempts to lead the Camelotians to create a new Camelot in Storybrooke. 

      Camelot is probably a utopia, free of war and evil. The problem with most utopias, is that to create perfection, the civilians are stripped of their free-will. It is not that Arthur is a villian, it is more that he is just too much a perfectionist.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • So should we hope that this dictator will reform or something?

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Xavenger wrote:
      So should we hope that this dictator will reform or something?

      Arthur is not a dictator.... he is a king who cares deeply for his people. Emma is nothing but the Dark One, as far as he is concerned. Why in the world should he care if she is saved? 

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Traitor! You're taking his side!

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Xavenger wrote:
      Traitor! You're taking his side!

      No.... there are no villains in this arc. Just people making difficult decisions. 

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • So far I just can't see Arthur as a villain. He's probably the only competent politician and ruler we've seen in OUAT. He's simply pragmatic and, as others pointed out, puts the good of his people above anything else. That makes him an admirable character in my eyes.

      That is, unless he only wants to reunite Excalibur to have some sort of personal magical powers. But I guess we're going to learn more about his shadiness in the next episodes.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • GothicNarcissus wrote:
      So far I just can't see Arthur as a villain. He's probably the only competent politician and ruler we've seen in OUAT. He's simply pragmatic and, as others pointed out, puts the good of his people above anything else. That makes him an admirable character in my eyes.

      That is, unless he only wants to reunite Excalibur to have some sort of personal magical powers. But I guess we're going to learn more about his shadiness in the next episodes.

      I agree with you. The Charmings and the others will see him as a villain, but he is doing the things he is for the good of his people, not just himself. And he seemed deeply troubled by some of the things he had to do. 

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • GothicNarcissus wrote:
      So far I just can't see Arthur as a villain. He's probably the only competent politician and ruler we've seen in OUAT. He's simply pragmatic and, as others pointed out, puts the good of his people above anything else. That makes him an admirable character in my eyes.

      That is because Arthur is not a villian.... Eddy and Adam even comfirmed it. The problem is that Arthur, is doing what he thinks is best for his kingdom. While, the Charmings are doing what they think is best for their family. Arthur is also a confilcted character, and driven by destiny.

      I commend Eddy and Adam, for making Arthur the only compent ruler in Fairytale Land!!!! Snow and Charming should be taking notes, if they ever want to rule properly.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Arthur is a "greater good" person. While this doesn't make him a villain per say, once he starts having people kill themselves, becasue it is for the greater good, I can't really classify him as a hero.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • I don't think Arthur is a Pure villain like the others from the previous seasons. He sounds more like Anastasia to me.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • MasterofCows wrote:
      GothicNarcissus wrote:
      So far I just can't see Arthur as a villain. He's probably the only competent politician and ruler we've seen in OUAT. He's simply pragmatic and, as others pointed out, puts the good of his people above anything else. That makes him an admirable character in my eyes.

      That is, unless he only wants to reunite Excalibur to have some sort of personal magical powers. But I guess we're going to learn more about his shadiness in the next episodes.

      I agree with you. The Charmings and the others will see him as a villain, but he is doing the things he is for the good of his people, not just himself. And he seemed deeply troubled by some of the things he had to do. 

      Unfortunately, at least if you ask me, this tends to mean that things don't bode well for our new favorite not-villain...

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • CoolDudeAl wrote:
      Arthur is a "greater good" person. While this doesn't make him a villain per say, once he starts having people kill themselves, becasue it is for the greater good, I can't really classify him as a hero.

      You know

      While I'm not sure that going to the extent of having someone kill themselves "for the greater good" is quite the point, but I've never understood people who pin villainness on those who stand for the greater good.

      And I'm not talking Grindelwald here -- He pulled a Hitler and construed the meaning of the phrase (like Hitler did the swastika), I'm talking people who actually act for the greater good.

      If there is no greater good, there is also no good. However, if there is no good, there can still be a greater good.

      Or, better put: "There can be a world without an individual, but there cannot be an individual without a world."

      Not to start a whole philosophical debate here or anything, but I just thought it'd be interesting to point out that people who act for the greater good aren't necessarily bad people or "villains." There is a limit of course and generally I'd say that having someone kill themselves is beyond it, but within those limitations, those are the best kind of people, in my eyes.

      And, to tie this back all together with Arthur and the topic at hand, all this personal reasoning and opinion is why I'm hesitant to call Arthur a villain in my own book (I'm aware A&E don't consider him one -- but everyone sees things differently...). Even if he DID have somone kill themselves "for the greater good," I'd rather that reason than most others.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • -ENGAGE SARCASM MODE-

      Me personally, I love a king who grants me honors and shakes my hand while stabbing me in the back.

      -DISENGAGE SARCASM MODE-

      Answer me this, is this a king you would be proud of? 'Cause I wouldn't.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Gamech4ng3r wrote:
      -ENGAGE SARCASM MODE-

      Me personally, I love a king who grants me honors and shakes my hand while stabbing me in the back.

      -DISENGAGE SARCASM MODE-

      Answer me this, is this a king you would be proud of? 'Cause I wouldn't.

      Good question!!

      I don't know that I'd be proud of him, but it'd be more like "I'm not proud of him yet," not, "I'm not proud of him period."

      I haven't seen enough of him to decide, y'know? It's been too short to really judge. 

      So far though, I think he's had to make some really, really tough decisions, and I respect him almost regardless of the paths he chooses for them, because in any case, owning up to those decisions and braving them is hard enough.

      I also respect that he is [seemingly] able to put the greater good ahead of him (as I said in an earlier post) (not like Grindelwald though, again, refer to my above post) (assuming he isn't just satisfying his own agenda) (wow this is a lot of "side notes in parentheses" for this sentence) (weeeeeeee (lol)).

      So, yeah!! I don't know that I am proud of him yet, I certainly think I could end up being proud of him, and I also equally as much certainly think I could end up being not proud of him. I do know that I respect him for at least some things, though. So! We shall see how this develops. :)

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • In french we say le mieux est l'ennemi du bien, that means better is ennemy of the goodness. I totally understand that, because i'm perfectionist too, and when you're obssessed with the best you easely forget moral/rules for competition.

      I think the issue with Arthur is that, he first starts acting for the good, but all the good things he did was never enough. Wathever he did, something gone wrong or someone betray him, so instead of becoming a villain like Cora, or Zelena, he fell in another extreme: too good. Which mean sacrifice, as a conscequance of the royal pressure.

      I think goodness is not the opposite of darkness, it's more something like a balance.

      Then, I think it became like a habit, because the way he acts with the manservant is totally villainous, though he actually show regret. But he totally know wath he's doing is bad, and he doesn't do it for him like every villain do, he do it for his kingdom. 

      So the question is: Doing bad things for your kingdom does make you a villain? 

      After all King george was a villain.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • LordViolet wrote:
      In french we say le mieux est l'ennemi du bien, that means better is ennemy of the goodness. I totally understand that, because i'm perfectionist too, and when you're obssessed with the best you easely forget moral/rules for competition.

      I think the issue with Arthur is that, he first starts acting for the good, but all the good things he did was never enough. Wathever he did, something gone wrong or someone betray him, so instead of becoming a villain like Cora, or Zelena, he fell in another extreme: too good. Which mean sacrifice, as a conscequance of the royal pressure.

      I think goodness is not the opposite of darkness, it's more something like a balance.

      Then, I think it became like a habit, because the way he acts with the manservant is totally villainous, though he actually show regret. But he totally know wath he's doing is bad, and he doesn't do it for him like every villain do, he do it for his kingdom. 

      So the question is: Doing bad things for your kingdom does make you a villain? 

      After all King george was a villain.

      King George was a villian, because he bankrupted his own kingdom. He was an inept king, who let his lazy son gamble the taxes away. 

      However, you are probably right about Arthur. No matter what he did or how hard he tried, life kept pelting him with lemons. After what happened with Guinevere and Lancelot, Arthur probably stopped trusting anyone. His goal for perfection, was the only thing he had left.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • I agree with Chocolate Eyes, King George was a greedy bastard who joined forces with the Evil Queen and pulled a genocide on the giants.

      But getting back to Arthur, you people lack imagination. Your love for the Arthurian Legends blinds you for what this version of Arthur has become.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • And set aside the whole incident with the Squire.  I can see that going both ways.

      What about the theft of the Crimson Toadstool thingie? First, he was there in Merlin's chamber when Regina, Belle, and Snow discovered that they could use this item to communicate with Merlin (I won't call it a deus ex machina, since they only introduced the item in this episode and it did not magically resolve any plotlines immediately),  Arthur talks a good game regarding Merlin and his prophecies, so I would expect that he would be thrilled with this discovery. Instead, he takes extreme measures to make sure the gang does not receive the item, thus preventing them from moving forward.  He says he feels bad for lying to David, but I'm really having my doubts.

      I think we need to find out what his endgame is.  While I will buy him being a "greater good", I think there is something else at work.  Either manipulation (maybe somehow Morgana is involved and is manipulating Arthur), or Arthur is not all he appears.  Lancelot's comment lends more credence to the latter.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • One Conspiracy thoery leads to another, but if Morgana is involved I think the producers would have given some kind of clue. But then again you just can't trust producers anymore can ya?

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Xavenger wrote:

      But getting back to Arthur, you people lack imagination. Your love for the Arthurian Legends blinds you for what this version of Arthur has become.

      No, it does not.... as the King Arthur of legends, had a true dark side. If anything OUaT is making Arthur more relatable to modern audiences, by making him a politician who does not trust anyone. 

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • ChocolatEyes613 wrote:
      LordViolet wrote:
      In french we say le mieux est l'ennemi du bien, that means better is ennemy of the goodness. I totally understand that, because i'm perfectionist too, and when you're obssessed with the best you easely forget moral/rules for competition.

      I think the issue with Arthur is that, he first starts acting for the good, but all the good things he did was never enough. Wathever he did, something gone wrong or someone betray him, so instead of becoming a villain like Cora, or Zelena, he fell in another extreme: too good. Which mean sacrifice, as a conscequance of the royal pressure.

      I think goodness is not the opposite of darkness, it's more something like a balance.

      Then, I think it became like a habit, because the way he acts with the manservant is totally villainous, though he actually show regret. But he totally know wath he's doing is bad, and he doesn't do it for him like every villain do, he do it for his kingdom. 

      So the question is: Doing bad things for your kingdom does make you a villain? 

      After all King george was a villain.

      King George was a villian, because he bankrupted his own kingdom. He was an inept king, who let his lazy son gamble the taxes away. 

      However, you are probably right about Arthur. No matter what he did or how hard he tried, life kept pelting him with lemons. After what happened with Guinevere and Lancelot, Arthur probably stopped trusting anyone. His goal for perfection, was the only thing he had left.

      That is not how that happened. I actually rewatched the show and some misread what he said, "The kingdom is bankrupt and the name of your lastest dalliance is no....." King George ruled a struggling kingdom (even though it seems like the only kingdom that does agriculture, lol) and the neighboring kingdom stopped trading with them. So, they were going bankrupt. James had nothing to do with that (yes, the wiki has that fact wrong as well). King George despite his crazy lack of love was a decent ruler.

      I think Arthur is pretty much the charaismatic version of George's ideology.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • If only Snow and Charming took notes from Arthur, because they are terrible rulers. 

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • ChocolatEyes613 wrote:
      If only Snow and Charming took notes from Arthur, because they are terrible rulers. 

      The worst part is that Snow was groomed to rule....must have forgotten more when she took that forgetting potion. Plus, I mean they had to rule the uprising and the kingdom before the curse, whic they did good. I think.....AMNESIA.

      I think that they could trade lessons, one to be good, and the other to rule effectively XD

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • In thier defense, how long have David and Mary margaret actually ruled a kingdom?  They had maybe one year in the EF before the curse (and they spent much of that time trying to undarken their unborn child), 1 year in the EF between curses, and maybe a few weeks during the 4a Arc in storybrooke.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Eskaver wrote:

      I think that they could trade lessons, one to be good, and the other to rule effectively XD

      Snow and Charming are hardly qualified to give the how-to-be-a-good-person to anyone, after some of the stunts they pulled last season. They kidnapped a baby, made it evil, and then threw down a portal. 

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Hmcooper4 wrote:
      In thier defense, how long have David and Mary margaret actually ruled a kingdom?  They had maybe one year in the EF before the curse (and they spent much of that time trying to undarken their unborn child), 1 year in the EF between curses, and maybe a few weeks during the 4a Arc in storybrooke.

      Snow learned via her parents (unless they only taught her how to be good). They led a rebellion and ruled for a good nine months. They led SB in season 2, then the EF in season 3. Then they seem to be slightly incompetent in season 4 and in-between.

      Arthur has a similar background as Charming and we no nothing about how long he has ruled either. At most 5ish years, depending on how long The Snow and charming stuff was.

      Arthur seems to be the "greater good" ruler, while Snow and Charming are like that, but then completely self-absorbed at other times.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Arctucrus wrote:
      CoolDudeAl wrote:
      Arthur is a "greater good" person. While this doesn't make him a villain per say, once he starts having people kill themselves, becasue it is for the greater good, I can't really classify him as a hero.
      You know

      While I'm not sure that going to the extent of having someone kill themselves "for the greater good" is quite the point, but I've never understood people who pin villainness on those who stand for the greater good.

      And I'm not talking Grindelwald here -- He pulled a Hitler and construed the meaning of the phrase (like Hitler did the swastika), I'm talking people who actually act for the greater good.

      If there is no greater good, there is also no good. However, if there is no good, there can still be a greater good.

      Or, better put: "There can be a world without an individual, but there cannot be an individual without a world."

      Not to start a whole philosophical debate here or anything, but I just thought it'd be interesting to point out that people who act for the greater good aren't necessarily bad people or "villains." There is a limit of course and generally I'd say that having someone kill themselves is beyond it, but within those limitations, those are the best kind of people, in my eyes.

      And, to tie this back all together with Arthur and the topic at hand, all this personal reasoning and opinion is why I'm hesitant to call Arthur a villain in my own book (I'm aware A&E don't consider him one -- but everyone sees things differently...). Even if he DID have somone kill themselves "for the greater good," I'd rather that reason than most others.

      I just dislike "greater good" thinking because it can so easily take us down the slippery slope of justifing just about anything. Things like: "Sure there may be inoccent people living in that country, but there are also terriorists, so let's just bomb the whole place, because it will make the rest of the world safer" would be a totally justified thought for someone with a true "greater good" stance. It also has a majority rules aspect that I dislike, because everything always has a majority, but that doesn't mean we just get to disregard the minority. Like if we just did things for the majority in the USA, the only people with any power would be straight, white people, and everyone else would be screwed over. And all because they are justifiing they are doing things for a "greater good". That's my thoughts anyway, but philosophy is a tricky subject, which is why it's so interesting.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Eskaver wrote:

      Arthur has a similar background as Charming and we no nothing about how long he has ruled either. At most 5ish years, depending on how long The Snow and charming stuff was.

      Arthur clearly has been ruling for years, as the Round Table was already legendary in 2.03.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Did Arthur really have to poison his squire though? And if someone notices that the squire is missing, all they have to do is look at the security tapes to see what happened...

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • MasterofCows wrote:
      Did Arthur really have to poison his squire though? And if someone notices that the squire is missing, all they have to do is look at the security tapes to see what happened...

      Peaple go missing all the time, in Storybrooke. 

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • ChocolatEyes613 wrote:
      Eskaver wrote:

      Arthur has a similar background as Charming and we no nothing about how long he has ruled either. At most 5ish years, depending on how long The Snow and charming stuff was.

      Arthur clearly has been ruling for years, as the Round Table was already legendary in 2.03.

      I only say that because of age. But also, Arthur didn't become king until he had Excalibur as it seems and that was only at least a few years before Lance met David and Snow. I guess it all depends and to see if we get some event connections.

      Arthur appears to be the same age as David, but I guess he could be at most 10 years older. But the Round Table might be famous rather than legendary because it was there for at most 10 years. Unless they found the fountain of youth....

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • ChocolatEyes613 wrote:
      MasterofCows wrote:
      Did Arthur really have to poison his squire though? And if someone notices that the squire is missing, all they have to do is look at the security tapes to see what happened...
      Peaple go missing all the time, in Storybrooke. 

      Yeah, good point. But seriously, if they just watch the security tape they can figure out how shady Arthur is and put a stop whatever the heck he is doing.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • MasterofCows wrote:
      ChocolatEyes613 wrote:
      MasterofCows wrote:
      Did Arthur really have to poison his squire though? And if someone notices that the squire is missing, all they have to do is look at the security tapes to see what happened...
      Peaple go missing all the time, in Storybrooke. 
      Yeah, good point. But seriously, if they just watch the security tape they can figure out how shady Arthur is and put a stop whatever the heck he is doing.

      I think that's what they'll do.....or they deserve to be tricked.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Eskaver wrote: I think that's what they'll do.....or they deserve to be tricked.

      Or Emma will do something so bad, causing her family to team up with Arthur. After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Eskaver wrote:
      MasterofCows wrote:
      ChocolatEyes613 wrote:
      MasterofCows wrote:
      Did Arthur really have to poison his squire though? And if someone notices that the squire is missing, all they have to do is look at the security tapes to see what happened...
      Peaple go missing all the time, in Storybrooke. 
      Yeah, good point. But seriously, if they just watch the security tape they can figure out how shady Arthur is and put a stop whatever the heck he is doing.
      I think that's what they'll do.....or they deserve to be tricked.

      Once they regain their memories, they'll definitely figure out what is going on with him. I would assume this would happen within the next three or four episodes. I wonder who will remember first?

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • MasterofCows wrote:
      Did Arthur really have to poison his squire though? And if someone notices that the squire is missing, all they have to do is look at the security tapes to see what happened...

      My thoughts exactly, during that whole scene...

      I swear, if they pull a "Bae's shoal" and just ignore the security cameras like they did with the sword earlier, then, well, Imma be mad. :X

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • idk about the term "true" villain but with all the shadehe threw in the last episode he's definitely heading for Big Bad pushing Emma down to Little Bad (or Anti-hero at the very least).

      it's obious that Emma is struggling between light and dark (at least in flashbacks) but she's coming off as more of a red herring now.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • I'm sorry if that was already answered in another thread: Did we established the timing between Arthur pulling Excalibur and the moment the Storybrooke folks arrived in Camelot? I'm also guessing that Merlin went missing prior to Arthur finding the sword which matches Blue's indication of the sorcerer not being seen for a very long time.

      I'm also guessing that Merlin could be elsewhere from inside the tree. Arthur knows that and it's the reason why he didn'n want his visitors to try to speak to him (hence stealing that mushroom from Charming).

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Vertblancrouge wrote:
      I'm sorry if that was already answered in another thread: Did we established the timing between Arthur pulling Excalibur and the moment the Storybrooke folks arrived in Camelot? I'm also guessing that Merlin went missing prior to Arthur finding the sword which matches Blue's indication of the sorcerer not being seen for a very long time.

      I'm also guessing that Merlin could be elsewhere from inside the tree. Arthur knows that and it's the reason why he didn'n want his visitors to try to speak to him (hence stealing that mushroom from Charming).

      It fascinates me, when and how Merlin must've been trapped in the tree, because he was free at one point, to go talk to a child Emma..!!!

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Arctucrus wrote:
      Vertblancrouge wrote:
      I'm sorry if that was already answered in another thread: Did we established the timing between Arthur pulling Excalibur and the moment the Storybrooke folks arrived in Camelot? I'm also guessing that Merlin went missing prior to Arthur finding the sword which matches Blue's indication of the sorcerer not being seen for a very long time.

      I'm also guessing that Merlin could be elsewhere from inside the tree. Arthur knows that and it's the reason why he didn'n want his visitors to try to speak to him (hence stealing that mushroom from Charming).

      It fascinates me, when and how Merlin must've been trapped in the tree, because he was free at one point, to go talk to a child Emma..!!!

      It was way in the past. Before Arthur pulled out the Excallibur. Arthur can see the future like Rumple, but probably in another way. Think Arthur found a way to trap him in the tree because they had a fallen out about the dagger. He seems to be in no hurry to free Merlin.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Mesmermann wrote:

      It was way in the past. Before Arthur pulled out the Excallibur. Arthur can see the future like Rumple, but probably in another way. Think Arthur found a way to trap him in the tree because they had a fallen out about the dagger. He seems to be in no hurry to free Merlin.

      Or Arthur knows that only the Dark One can free Merlin, because it was the original Dark One who trapped him. 

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • How can the can the original Dark One be alive. They have to kill him, to pass the darkness. Arthur probably cause Merlin being trapped. We don't know for sure that Merlin is in the tree. Arthur could have lied.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Mesmermann wrote:
      How can the can the original Dark One be alive. They have to kill him, to pass the darkness. Arthur probably cause Merlin being trapped. We don't know for sure that Merlin is in the tree. Arthur could have lied.

      The original Dark One is probably long dead, but the Dark One's magic still exists in Emma. Arthur probably suspects that Emma is the current Dark One, and just wants everyone to stop playing round. Remember, they were just looking for the toadstool to stall for more time.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Vertblancrouge wrote:
      I'm sorry if that was already answered in another thread: Did we established the timing between Arthur pulling Excalibur and the moment the Storybrooke folks arrived in Camelot? I'm also guessing that Merlin went missing prior to Arthur finding the sword which matches Blue's indication of the sorcerer not being seen for a very long time.

      I'm also guessing that Merlin could be elsewhere from inside the tree. Arthur knows that and it's the reason why he didn'n want his visitors to try to speak to him (hence stealing that mushroom from Charming).

      All we know is Arthur pulled Excalibur before he banished Lancelot, and Lancelot is already banished by the time he marries Snow and Charming. So sometime before the first curse.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • As for merlin being 'Free" when he gave Emma the warning, I'm not sure.  Because the Apprentice was talking to Merlin via Blue Smoke right after the Emma/DragonEgg incident, which would be around 8 years prior to Merlin's warning to Emma.

      My guess is that Merlin has been trapped for a while, but can still communicate with the outside world.  In Emma's case, we have no proof that the whole conversation did not take place in her head, and we know that even back then that Emma had strong potential for Magic, which might have allowed for a brief contact between Merlin and Emma.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Well, just because Merlin didn't want to meet with his apprentice in person doesn't mean he couldn't. Maybe he was busy elsewhere at the time (working at a movie theater? :P) or something. I don't think his conversation with the Apprentice was necessarily while he was trapped. It could very well be, but not definitely.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • A Spy in the Mirror
        Preparing Editor Spell
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.