myril

Haven't read the books, haven't read much about the show before seeing the pilot either, so I was rather unspoiled about it. It got my attention because I read, there will be a new show having a woman in the middle of the story, time travel putting her into a past Scotland. Enough for me to give it a try, being even more of a history buff than the sci-fi geek I am as well. Had even more interest in the show after I saw that Bear McCreary is responsible for the score - I like his work, there was always a slight Scottish touch in his music, pipes and drums, and I was more than curious about his take on Scottish music, having a thing for pipes and drum myself. If it comes to score music I like to see the pictures connecting with it. The pilot was good so will come back for the next episodes, it made me curious about the characters. As it was some nice cinematography, good story pace, and some great moments in the music. McCreary has posted about the episode on his block , if anyone is interested. I heard "trobhad", one of the few words I kinda know in Gaelic, a friend used occasionally Gaelic dog commands. Means come, pronounced something like traw-utt. And confirmed on this blog: http://greatscotblog.com/2014/08/03/outlander-episode-101-sassenach-the-gaidhlig-bits-i-could-decipher/ There is more about the Gaelic used in the episode on there. And I am fine with no subtitles. Makes it interesting to see how much body language and circumstances can tell. Maybe not the chemistry of two people instantly falling in love with each other, but there was enough in their body language and looks to tell, there is curiosity, they are intrigued, though themselves hardly sure why, but I could feel something starting there. Claire and Frank had the right chemistry telling me their marriage was not some convenience but an emotional connection. As well though could sense a slight awkwardness between them, what years of being mostly apart while in a dramatic time can create.Just after watching the the pilot I can see already an interesting difference looming in the feelings Claire might have for Jamie and for Frank. Found the near rape scene somewhat contrived, because, really, in a moment of battle or hunting people or whatever they were doing that is what a captain, an officer, the leader of the expedition is thinking of, to have his way with a woman in the woods? And with a woman who sounded hardly like a woman from around? Whatever. Immediately knew that this was Frank's ancestor, " Black Jack" Jonathan Randall, the one they had been talking about with the reverend earlier. Remembering Frank's excitement though to find Black Jack mentioned in historical documents, a sense of admiration there, the near rape set an interesting contrast: the difference what is remembered of history, or what historians see in it, read into it, assume and write, and how it might have looked in the time itself and from a different perspective. There is often more than one view, more than one truth.

Why not elderly? I can see it with Richard, even with Ivanhoe. Arthur's myth is no contemporary of Robin Hood anyway, and they had not much to do with each other, but they're doing their own twist on tales so who knows. Concerning age as well, It's not like Snow White is still some teenage girl just reaching marital age in their version either. Of course seeing how they waste iconic characters might be they do a five minute short fairy back moment with Merlin. I don't think that knight is that misleading though in the call, it suggests they're looking for someone looking like a person who is or was used to wield a sword, wear armor, gives the impression of battle skills, regardless if he has the title of a knight or is something else. Not that Merlin can't have that too, it's not like someone studying books and magic (science) can't have some impressive six-pack and biceps. Maybe it's just me having the picture of a more sturdy person in mind when reading this casting call, a picture I don't quite get when thinking of Merlin. But a lot is possible. It just makes more sense to me to have a connection with Robin this early in the season than throw in some random Arthurian reference. edit: On second thought as the 4th episode could be probably more a Rumple or Belle episode, so it might be some rather random character, and have nothing to do with Robin.

The production in development I heard of has nothing to do with Disney. It's a European production (Egoli Tossell, Berlin, Morena Films, Madrid, and others). Has been in development for a while, but seems to have gained momentum recently. Is there another?

Ivanhoe makes the most sense to me at the moment, though Richard is another option. I think, that Robin needs to be fleshed out a bit more, they have to make Robin more relatable, or sympathetic. Maybe a fairy back to explain why Robin thought Marian's (seeming) death was his fault.

No, it's not what the writers said. It's what I wrote, because I don't understand what the big deal is that for example HuffPost is making with their headline. As if it's huge insult against the voice actors of the movie that the showrunners of Once haven't approached them for a role on their project. It's not. It could be geek fun to have some of the cast do cameos, but otherwise I find it understandable, that the show doesn't want to mash up things on that level as much with the movie. That is the point: They want to do their own thing and not a sequel, even if they might stay very close to the movie with their story and take of the characters. Why should Adam and Eddy have any interest to do a sequel to Frozen inside of their own show? As they've done with pretty much every other character they're using popularity maybe to get people interested, but they never sounded like they were trying to shove in a sequel by the back door. Adam and Eddy want to use Frozen as they used other stories, a new toy to toy around with for a while for fun, while the show itself still is mainly about Regina, Rumple, Emma, Snow, Charming. Frozen is practically a playground, which the Once team will imitate and mix with their own stuff. The difference I see, and why I think that it is indeed not right to call it a sequel, regardless how close they will stay to the movie story as background for the Frozen characters, the difference is, that they will only play around with Frozen. Frozen is not going to take over Once, it's just another world being taken into the Once universe. I don't think that Disney gave them even instructions not to call it sequel, it quite simply is not meant as that. I know, with the casting news rushing in it looks sometimes, as if Frozen might take over the show, but the casting says nothing about how much screentime and story they actually will have. I expect it to be not that much different from Neverland, only that Arendelle will be a thing of fairy backs, and the main present story plays out in Storbrooke, just that the main Frozen characters will be still mostly like they have been in the Disney movie. The problem I see is, I think a lot of people do expect the show to do a lot more than that, than just playing around, and so probably will be disappointed. Looking at it more as fan fiction is a good idea. If Disney would like to do a sequel and as TV series then they would do so, and not as half season and probable spin-off of Once. Once is a different take on their movies, but not a sequel of any Disney movie, it makes use of the Disneyverse but it's more of an alternative universe of it. If Once can use Frozen succesfully, good for the company, because, ABC production, otherwise Disney is at the moment developing a stage version and rejoicing about the merchandise sales. If Once helps to keep these merchandise sales high, great, but that is more of a welcome extra than long time strategy. I don't think the company has to protect anything here, they can sit back quite relaxed see what will happen. Adam and Eddy are taking the bigger risk, they will get the crapstorm from the audience if people dislike what they make of the popular Frozen characters. If one likes we can call it a sequel, because from a narrative point of view it might look much like one, like plenty of fan fiction more or less could be called sequels, story wise many are. But from a business point of view it certainly is not a sequel, won't be marketed as that, and I think that is okay.

(from media thread) The characters on screen were animated characters, voiced by Kirsten Bell, Idina Menzel and others in the English version of the movie. Do Kirsten Bell or Idina Menzel look anything like the animated characters on screen? No. It was great voice acting, but I don't see what is the big deal, that Once casts people looking like the animated characters and is not casting the English voice cast (in other language other actors did the job anyway). TV and movie are still primarily visual media. I wouldn't call what they're doing on Once a sequel, whatever word definitions say. It's the Once universe, and like other characters from other stories came into it, so will characters from the Frozen story come into it. Right, it looks like they don't plan to do some of the more crazy twists they've done with others characters, but their basic approach is the same. Frozen is a toy in the toy shop of the show, of Once Upon a Time, they will use it like they used other toys, for fun, toss it away, and that's it. They don't continue the story, they play with it, but for a change without much changes.

Replying in spoilers

The boys had the comics world, Marvel, DC, superheroes, and the girls got the Disney princesses. Now the boys get some princes and the girls, oh, wait, where are the women superheroes? Okay, there are a few women now as sidekicks to the male superheroes, bit of brain, plenty of boobs and naked skin and mostly impractical costumes, but it's a start. In exchange the Disney princes got names. ;-)

Reminds me of the baffling psych of serial killer groupies. I get being fascinated by the evil, by serial killers. My hometown has its own famous serial killer and I am fascinated by his story, though besides his psych the historical context, culture is an aspect interesting me as much if not more (it happened about a 100 years ago). The trial has been commented on by a socialpsychologist and there are well documented protocols of interviews a psychiatrist did with the killer, interesting to study for someone who studied socialpsychology and sociology. As much I am intrigued by exploring the lives for example of Irma Grese or Maria Mandl, both guards in concentration camps and executed for it. How do people tick being able to do such things. Fascination, yes. What I don't get are the apologetic stretches people do. No matter how much I dig into the psych, and understand emotions, motivations, behavior, and find it interesting to muse, why these killers do the things they do while I don't, I never forget or try to excuse that they are killers and cruel torturers. Just because I might understand motivation even, doesn't mean I turn to think that it was not all wrong and evil. But I have no problem either to feel sympathy for a person and still put them away when they did wrong, did crimes, probably not a common trait. I loved Xena because she was called out for the crap she did, and she didn't deny and did regret. And she paid for it. Though I disliked most of the Heaven-and-Hell and redemption of Callisto arc (arg!), on the other hand it was an attempt to show the ultimate act of love, not well written, but it had moments. I still can live better with that arc though than with what Once is doing with Regina. It probably makes though a difference in my perception of Rumple compared to Regina, that he is not as much haloed. I have the impression it's mostly shipping of Rumple and Belle, there don't seem to be much just Rumple love around, while Regina gets love as character on her own. The writers and cast don't seem to be such fanboys/-girls of Rumple as however redeemed character, and certainly Carlyle enjoys to play him as a bad man. Okay, Espenson has some writer's love for Rumple, but I don't have the impression of her, that she is not seeing his dark side for what it is, but she might be a blind to the creepy sides of RumBelle. It's a difference if writers write a character to be loved by audience or to be interesting for audience. Of course one can't help it at times, when (part of) the audience nevertheless falls in love with the character. But I agree, that a problem on the show is, that especially Regina is not called out anymore for her evil acts (if I remember right in season 1 people did). It's like the people of Enchanted Forest / Storybrooke have given up on that because they decided she is a crazy lost cause, untouchable as part of the Charming clan, or are falling for a poor abused girl sob fest. Neither is Rumple called out, although I do give the writers a bit of slack in this case for the past season, for setting up the bad Pan story Rumple in contrast got the abandoned boy background, and he was a bit of messed up first in present time, convinced he'd lost his son. 3B Rumple was mostly a toyboy. But he paid now a huge price and lost his son finally. Will see how things develop in the next season, hopefully some more comes back onto him, it would makes sense and could be interesting drama. But Regina - she is a lost cause to me. I am at the point to wish, they would send her off to some faraway forest or better island and let her have her happy ending. Be done with it. And then maybe we will get better writing again. This costly fanfiction bores me at best or annoys me. Instead they can keep Elizabeth Mitchell around, if she plays the Black Fairy and original Snow Queen in one person, if you like as revengeful sister of Maleficent. Would be good reason to retire the Charmings and bring in Sleeping Beauty Clan. And ... I should put that into Wishing on a star. There is a huge difference of drowning a great villain with a sob story or give them a relatable background, which makes us feel creeped out, because it might be sometimes so easy to go down the evil road. I can relate way better with Hook, it's not a sob story, not even the story with his brother was, he had to pay, and he is showing some effort now to change, not perfect, thankfully not, but I buy into him honestly trying. The gates of hell are open night and day; Smooth the descent, and easy is the way: But to return, and view the cheerful skies, In this the task and mighty labor lies. Virgil, Aeneid Maybe. And they are showing, that this fascination might be not just with men. So far research has mostly only seen or looked at women becoming groupies of men, but perhaps could work for women as serial killers as well. Trying to save the little boy inside of the bad man is speculated as one explanation for the groupies' behavior, or that they think they can change the man. Rumple has Belle, and Regina seem to get Robin, and people can happily identify with them.

I would prefer Graham over Neal as name of Baby Snowflake any time.

Just remembered this: Adam and Eddy had talked about how they'd wished to get Jamie Dornan, Graham, for a visit in season 3, but he was too busy for it. They said, they would tell after the final, what plans they had, if asked: (interview: http://www.accesshollywood.com/once-upon-a-time-producers-wanted-jamie-dornan-back-for-season-3_article_90529) Has anyone so far asked them about it? Was just wondering, while enjoying Sunday brunch and doing the usual Once musing (what a habit). First couldn't think of where they could have wanted him for, but guess a heartbreaking scene between him and Emma was the plan in the final episode. If so, Emma should have called out Regina when Regina was blaming as usual others for destroying her majesty's happiness. She should have done anyway, but that would have given even more reason.

GaiusB, please don't refrain from discussing. It might not always be easy to understand each other, particular when having different mother languages, and statuary rape is a sensitive matter, but I try to see were your view is coming from, even though I disagree. In my country age of consent is as well 16. Sex with teenagers between age 16-18 still though can be prosecutable even if there was consent if the person is a ward or pupil of the adult involved, so if the adult is a teacher, chaperon, supervisor. I myself have been early in an romantic, sexual relationship, I was barely 15 even and he was four years older. It gives me a shiver to think, he could have been prosecuted for our love, and yes, I loved him. Was I though really ready for it? Not sure, but that is a different issue. In that relationship, regardless age, I was actually the more adult person, and being trained at that time as youth leader, even the one aware of possible legal issues, but luckily my parents had no problem with it. In such a case statuary rape is a double edged sword. And I remember watching the movie Loving Annabelle, a 17 year old and her teacher falling in love, and I was miffed when at the end the teacher was arrested for statuary rape. It can be delicate matter. But Dani sleeping with Brandon is not taken as wrong because of just age difference and age of consent. This was sure not a romance. Dani is an adult, experienced woman in her late 20s more likely early 30s and she slept with a drunken, underage teenager, who was in a highly vulnerable emotional situation when she did it. Dani as a more or less recovering alcoholic should know particular how little control a dead drunk person has, she met Mike at an Alcoholics meeting and was his sponsor (someone meant to help to recover, to get new control of one's life). Furthermore, Dani had been in a relationship with Bandon's father, had pushed to move in with him, and was pretty much on the way to become Brandon's stepmother before the whole thing with the money and secrets blew into her face. This is not a 21 year old college student sleeping with a premature teenager in love with her. But even if Dani were that, the facts that Brandon was drunken, was emotional vulnerable makes what Dani did wrong regardless the question of statuary rape. To explain, a different story: Janina, a 22 years old piano student living in San Diego is tutoring freshman Brandon, age 18, the new member of the symphony. One day Janina comes to the house, where she finds Brandon alone and dead drunk. Brandon just had a fallout with his father and was brushed off by his current big crush, a girl his age he knew since high school, so he got drunken to drown his sorrows. Instead of training piano with him, Janina puts Brandon to bed, She undresses him and gives Brandon a hug to comfort him, she kisses him, she makes him lay down, she has sex with him, and Brandon lets it happen. Sounds harmless, does it. It isn't. Brandon being dead drunk and emotional vulnerable is not in a condition to be trusted that he knows if he is giving consent or not, and therein is the problem. Legally it is even clear (in some countries at least): a person whose judgment is impaired by drugs or alcohol can't give consent. For years we have done campaigns saying "No is No", but we had to learn, that this is not it. It is not about a person being able to say no, it is about being able to say yes. Unless you are sure that is what the person can do and is doing, and not just assume or think he or she agrees, while actually the person is just not knowing how to say no or doesn't dare to, my advice is to everyone, men and women: Let it be, you could commit a sexual assault, rape otherwise. Ask, get a clear yes, and if not, let it be. No, that is no killer of romance, it is simply speaking with each other, communication, which should be an important part of any relationship from the very beginning. It is due time that we get those only seemingly blurred lines clear. Only yes means yes. About pushing Brandon to feel as victim: He is a victim. But right, he so doesn't look like one from what we are used to see, and Brandon certainly doesn't want to feel like being one. Most victims don't want to feel victim. He is ashamed, that he had himself not under control, was drunken, and let it happen. He feels guilty, that he slept with the girlfriend of his father. He might even feel guilty, that he eventually felt an attraction at that moment or before to Dani, he a hormone driven adolescent with fantasies, she an attractive, experienced woman. Brandon feels guilty, he shouldn't have let that happen. As if things at that moment had been in Brandon's control. That is the point, they weren't, he was drunk and emotional vulnerable. Dani on the other hand was in control, she was not drunk, she is an adult, one who had taken a care role for Brandon at the side of his father. She should have known better and she did wrong. No, Dani didn't force him, but neither did she care, if Brandon was in the position to know what he was doing. Feeling guilty is what most victims do, feeling like it was their mistake what happened, but the point is, it isn't, they were not in control, someone else was. And Brandon was not in control, and not because of some hormones going crazy (never get why anyone uses that as an excuse, it's not true and crap), but because he was drunk and because someone else took control, Dani. Hard to accept, particular men have a hard time to accept that they had no control but someone else. As I see it, Lena and Stef are not trying to convince Brandon to feel raped, a victim, they don't have to, he is. What Lena and Stef both told him, is that his feelings of guilt don't need to be. Brandon didn't get drunk to sleep with Dani, he didn't ask Dani to come by to sleep with her, if he had been sober I highly doubt he would have let Dani get in his bed. He didn't flirt with her (Dani was a bit flirty with him from the beginning though), he had no crush on her, he was in love with Callie, he was not pursuing to get in bed with Dani, so what should he feel guilty about? There is nothing he has to feel guilty about, not in this case. Brandon can feel guilty about bribing Ana, faking ID cards, lying to his parents, but Dani sleeping with him shouldn't be on his list of guilt. For once it is right to give him a free pass for his behavior.

Interesting how different some people see this show (not on here, but in reviews), from all enthusiastic about complex women over ranting it is putting men into a bad light to calling it even misogynistic (no kidding, see media thread). Couldn't agree less on the last view, but as well don't agree on men being mostly shown in unfavorable ways compared to the women lead characters particular. Think the men on the show are not at all just portrayed as idiot, stalker or killer. for example I like Mitchell and Lee a lot and did so from season 1 on, and both are shown as competent, warm and smart. Right, Kevin is an idiot, but has his good moments. DS Andy Roper is a complex characters, competent in the job (and there is no doubt left about that), but with a major problem concerning relationships. Yes, he comes across even creepy at some point, and Janet makes it quite clear that he is, but looks like he is a guy taking things hard. Nick Savage is eventually a psychopath, okay, but it's not like Rachel didn't make some questionable decisions in their relationship. Stalking him at home, pushing for the flat - what was she thinking. Just because Rachel is one of the lead characters doesn't mean everything she is doing is considered okay by the show. Neither though did it justify what Savage did. Adrian, Janet's husband is a good guy, but he has his limits, and that is okay. It is Janet who cheats, it is mostly her job taking a toll on their relationship, and it might not be fair to her, that he walks out on her, but it is understandable. Adrian is no idiot. It is one of the great things of the show, that they have characters, that are relateable, women and men, I could find something to connect with in most of the regulars so far, good things and shameful things. Looking at the cases the show has a good mix IMO among the victims and perpetrators concerning men and women. Do the regular, lead characters, the women of the show look so much better than the men? No. Strong to me means complex and that includes sometimes plenty of flaws. I have met these kind of women in real life, I am one of them. I have worked in by men and masculine behavior dominated fields (politics, tech), and yes, women are unfortunately often not that much better. I was a regular contributor to what we called "Macho-Kasse" (macho cash box) for stupid lines of the sexist kind, belittling women or sometimes men. I spend long nights drinking and smoking in pubs with the mates. I can be opinionated, nasty, grumpy, unfair, pushy and a hard and trying boss. And being good in a job doesn't mean one has a good grip of things in private life, and that can include mistake one would not make professionally. Rachel,Janet, Gill are women struggling to make work and private life and everything in between work, complex characters and relateable to me. I don't want Uber-women on screen nor the boring damsel-in-distress or a hushed housewife in the background or the mother of all mothers. People have flaws, people have strength, and sometimes a strength can be a flaw and a flaw the advantage. Two other things I like about the show, unrelated: I like how one gets an idea, that solving a crime is a bigger team effort, not just a two-people team thing. And that it includes a lot pf paper work. Not long ago I did an open online course offered by the University of Glasgow about forensic science, with lectures about things like the approach to a crime scene, crime scene management, importance of control, preserve, record, recover, reconstruct, something like chain of custody (paper work!) - and the show comes quite close to that. I love the interview scenes they are doing. Nice examples of cognitive interview in it. And have something of a chamber play. edited for spelling (always nice to see the worst mistakes hours, days later)

Two very different views on the show: http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013-05-22/is-scott-and-bailey-the-most-sexist-show-on-tv opinion is, that men are put into a bad light by the show http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2011-07-01/why-does-scott--bailey-hate-women opinion is, that women are put into a bad light by the show They do share the view the show being sexist though.

Aside that I don't trust the writers to be good enough to handle such things well enough, they show in interviews to me a lack of sensitivity for too many things, but being a family show is not a reason for me to shy away from issue like abuse. We should be more worried to protect kids in real life than to protect them from seeing wrong things on screen. Yes, some things are tough to see, to handle, but that is why parents, adults shouldn't let kids watch such shows alone - after all it's not afternoon program, it's prime time. No-show policy hides things which in real life do happen, and sends only the very wrong message, that such things better should stay hidden and not be talked about, dealt with alone or worst even not at all, while the opposite should be done. So far we have only hints and hunches, what Emma might have been through, and keeping it to be just hints and hunches and never speak it out and make things clear is IMO the wrong way to go. Emma has emotional issues, is scarred, and what ever happened, better let us know why, show it. Even more so considering how much Woegina we have gotten, we should get a better idea, what being forced away from her parents, growing up without much of any support system did to Emma. That said, I don't think though after listening to the interview it is about abuse. maybe it was a magic inicdent, Emma struggling with the feeling, if she feels happy, comfortable with someone bad things will happen, and not just to her, but the people she gets close to. Could be a fear, that if she let's go, she could hurt people. Not so new, that she has such fears, but it would fit into Frozen.

It was more about Callie's credibility. It was just pretrial and we didn't get to see the whole, but it seemed to have been her words against his. I guess Liam was not so foolish to say, they had consensual sex, because why should he, Callie had no prove, there was no evidence, and the other girl denied anything happened. The attorney might have hoped that it would be easier to make it believable enough if Callie said she consented, though if Liam still had insisted, that he had no intercourse with her, that she was making it all up, he still would have gotten away. In a trial it is not about if you believe that a crime happened, you have to have absolutely no doubts, prove that it happened, and the attorney had not enough to even get this to a trial. It sucks, but it is what happens often. Dani was arrested, but nothing says that a trial against her will be easy or that they even will get a trial. Dani as well could claim, nothing happened, and that Brandon is making up things being jealous of her. Now it could get back on Brandon, that he pretended, that he made things up to hurt Callie, when Vico set her up.

Had the same thought. Finding out about the dagger doesn't mean finding the dagger. While blackmailing when one could control the Dark One for their own purposes. After all Rumple lied and pointed out, that Belle had the (fake) dagger, so he pretend couldn't have been involved in the disappearance of Zelena. That implies to me as well, that it won't be Regina - she is one of the people Rumple might have some interest to hide the fact from that he has the real dagger and is in control of himself again. Regardless how busy she will be with her soulmate disaster Henry - unless they decide it's time for him to be not just stupid acting but evil can't see him blackmailing his granddad. Hook - what for should he blackmail Rumple? Unless for safety of his life. But Hook should be pirate enough to know that knowing about the dagger is not enough, quite the opposite, it could make Rumple feel inclined to find a way to get rid of him. One of the Frozen characters - could be, but Rumple could very well look for a nice way to cause a little accident, and the person is gone, unless she or he has some powers on her/his own. Who would miss Hans? All that said, all is still possible, because logic is not the strongest in the story telling of Once. After reading, that they have cast John Rhys-Davies to voice Pabbie (no geek adventure show is complete without him, lol), had the thought, it would be funny, if they'd cast William Shatner as voice for a troll as well at some point, or something else.

I was just thinking again about the fake dagger - and I wish it would come back to haunt Rumple. What if Belle is under attack and she would use it in dire need to "call" for his help? But of course, the fake dagger can't get Rumple quick to her. Like Bell and Henry are doing inventory in the shop and Elsa attacks coming for Rumple (or Mitchell's character instead of Elsa)... One can dream.

Was he a bit of a rascal as young man, taking risks, caring little, and probably hoping to marry some rich girl to have a lazy, adventurous life? And James was actually the charming toddler but then was turned around by the lovely education of King George? Just wondering why we should be in need of another life changing moment in David's past.

Is that an official promo? No fan video? Oh dearies. The text by the "narrator", as snarkastic said, it's from Paradise Lost by Milton. Lines from the 1st book: Out of our evil seek to bring forth good, Our labour must be to pervert that end, And out of good still to find means of evil; (1. book 162-165) Of hope in fears and dangers, heard so oft In worst extreams, and on the perilous edge Of battel when it rag'd, in all assaults Thir surest signal, they will soon resume New courage and revive, though now they lye Groveling and prostrate on yon Lake of Fire, As we erewhile, astounded and amaz'd, No wonder, fall'n such a pernicious highth. (1. Book 275-282) Awake, arise or be forever frozen ( the last line as changed a bit, original it is: Awake, Arise, or be forever fallen - 1. Book, 330) The ongoing fight between good and evil, or so. Whatever. This promo doesn't really make me want to see the season.

So Emma is returning to "her old, evil ways", right? (And now that Emma has done this, and possibly done that, will she return to her old ways) Of course I know they mean Regina. But it made me laugh. The fine art of writing.

definitely indefinite These guys could work as speechwriters for politicians.

Was it ever stated by the writers or on the show that Snow and David are not soulmates? I am wondering. Of course it's still strange if they never use the term in context with Snow and David, but there is a difference between explicitly saying, they are not, and not saying they are. Just saying (what they eventually could say later, lol). But seriously, have they said that or is that our interpretation because the term was so far never used in describing the relationship between Snow and Charming. I kinda agree with you, true love can be understood, and is by many I think, as a part of being soulmates. One could argue, soulmates are the ones who do complete us, but to make it fully happen it takes the work of true love. Meanwhile people don't need to be soulmates to develop and feel true love for each other.

Nearly choked on my ice pop watching the vid /reading it. Definite undefined. Comedians. And for once quoting myself: (see page 9) I rest my case. lol

To balance it out for Jamie Dornan, something better to watch: a first look at The Fall season 2 http://www.spoilertv.com/2014/07/the-fall-season-2-first-look-promo.html (Maybe good material to create a short, "A Nightmare for Regina" vid? Have no time to do that myself at the moment, yes, I have a dark soul)