orza

The many fairy tales characters were part of the original Petipa staging from 18909. The many fairy tale characters at the wedding in the third act were part of the original 1890 Petipa staging. It was probably more a sign that everyone was reading the same Grimm collection of stories. I wouldn't read any more into it. Historically, the big party scenes in the classic story ballets were put in mostly for the dancers to show off rather than to advance the narrative.

All that stuff is pretty tame compared to the original source material. Fairy tales are gruesome, full of killing and maiming and then quickly forgiving and forgetting This show is a fairy tale so it's pretty much expected.

One can fly nonstop from Seattle to Sacramento in a little over an hour and then drive north. Alaska Airlines has multiple flights a day. It is less than 200 miles from Sacramento to Leggett. Or perhaps take a Seattle/Portland/Redding flight and then a short drive to the coastal destination. A weekend trip from Seattle to northern California is quite doable.

The filming location is the Pacific Northwest, which looks very different from the east coast or great lakes. It makes sense to pick a fictional location that is at least a believable match with the filming location.

Fox can't air Broadchurch because BBC America acquired the broadcast rights and has already aired it. BBC America and PBS air foreign shows and the viewer numbers are not anywhere near as the viewership of the commercial networks. Americans who watch foreign shows are a small minority of all potential American viewers. It doesn't matter that lots of people in other countries watch American shows. That does not influence the viewing habits of domestic viewers. The commercial networks have market researched this stuff to death. If they thought enough people would watch foreign shows to make it profitable they would be broadcasting foreign shows.

American TV is a for-profit business. If a good story does well in another country it is good business sense to look into adapting it for an American audience. Networks don't air foreign shows because they can't make money doing that. Americans won't watch shows with subtitles or hard-to-understand regional accents and dialects. Shows heavy with foreign cultural references that American can't relate to also have a hard time finding an audience. There is just as much bad stuff on British TV as on American TV.

I thought that was a very reasonable amount of baggage for a family of five for an extended stay. So RC is an aging hippy who wants to be comfortable. I don't see how that is snark-worthy.

That doesn't make any sense. That scene has already been filmed so Robert Carlyle based his remarks on the actual dialog they used, the direction given by the director, discussion with the other actor and info from the producers.

I think Henry wants erase his real memories and just have his fake memories back not because he misses his life in New York but because that would take away the pain and loss he feels over his father's death. That is what will bring Henry and Rumple closer, their shared grief.

Belle already left Rumple three times and each time he let her go without a fight. He even said on several occasions, the latest being in Neverland, that he expects that one day Belle will see what a monster he is and leave him. So, no, I don't think Rumple will do anything to Belle if she leaves him. He even gifted Belle a library and an apartment after she left him. There is nothing in that scene to suggest Rumple had an ulterior motive for doing that. Rumple didn't kill Milah because she left him or Bae. What caused him to snap was when Milah screamed at him that she never loved him. We saw in Manhattan that wasn't true. They were a young couple very much in love before Rumple went off to war. Milah's life wasn't in danger before she stupidly tried to rewrite their history together to get that jab in that would cut him to the quick. The idea that Rumple would kill any woman who tried to leave him is not supported by canon.

I don't think it is foregone conclusion that they'll revisit the story of Maleficent. The Maleficent movie is different than the Disney kiddy cartoons. No one is comparing Disney's Beauty and the Beast cartoon to the OUaT characters. Even the 10 years olds in my extended family get it that the Belle we see in OUaT is a different character than the Disney cartoon princess. Since Maleficent is a live-action movie it invites direct comparisons, which I doubt Adam and Eddy really want. They can't compete with a big-budget Hollywood blockbuster starring an award-winning actress in the title role. I don't know if I would call Kristen Bauer Van Stratten famous. She is a TV actress who has managed to stay employed over the years. She may not be interested in reprising her role on Once because she doesn't want to be compared to Angelina Jolie and found lacking.

The problem there is that none of those actors are good enough to carry an episode. Megan Ohry had her chance to star in a prime time show with established stars and she was not very good in it. While Lee Ahrenberg may be good at delivering snappy one-liners lines to provide comic relief, he could not carry the episode when he was given the chance. Dreamy was just terrrible. The same can be said for the other actors who play Blue, Granny, etc. There is a good reason they are bit players who always seem to be available when they are occasionally called upon to stand around in the background and say at most a line or two.

Meh. Nick is a criminal, too, and Hank is his accomplice, Nick is a murderer, a serial killer who justifies his kills by convincing himself that he is on the right side. I think the only way to watch these kinds of shows is to accept that real-world values and morals do not apply and just treat it all like playground squabbles. There's really no enjoyment for me in keeping score of how many laws have been broken and who has committed the most vile acts.

I don't think it's beside the point. Emilie de Ravin is a big part of the problem why Belle as a character is not working. Emilie doesn't have much range as an actor and when she does get something to do it is hit or miss whether she will do a decent job of it. In some scenes I can almost see the thought bubble over Robert Carlyle's head saying "Fuck! Do I have to do all the work here in our scenes together?" If it's obvious to viewers it must certainly be obvious to the producers and everyone else involved in editing. I get the impression that they have more or less given up on her. Sometimes Emilie flubs a line or stumbles in her sky-high heels and they leave it in. Or maybe that was already the best take and they had to move on, mistakes be damned. They also don't take as much care with her lighting and camera angles as they do with Robert Carlyle's. I don't see any reason why they can't kill Belle off. These characters are not the live-action version of the Disney characters and the show has a different target demographic than the audience for the kiddie cartoons. Maybe they will surprise us this season and Zelena will again order Rumple to kill Belle and this time he must comply. Losing both Bae and Belle to death within days of each other would have a profound effect on Rumple and would provide opportunity to take the character in an entirely new direction. That could be a potentially interesting storyline for Rumple. I think he works better as a character when he is a loner and dark grey figure with unclear motives who sometimes works with others when it suits his purposes.

Yeah, hot pants in Fairytale land, a place where women normally wear long voluminous skirts and corsets, made no sense at all. If they had just put her in Snow's riding pants she would have looked great, well except for the rat's nest on her head. But the naughty Catholic school girl look with fuck-me heels she's occasionally sporting in Storybrooke is somhow worse because that really makes her look like Rumple's daughter.