Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER

Shanna Marie

Member
  • Content Count

    8.0k
  • Joined

Community Reputation

21.7k Excellent

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.shannaswendson.com
  1. Huh? So I guess Gideon didn't notice Belle was rapidly aging? Which makes no sense. Yeah, time wouldn't have seemed frozen from Gideon's perspective. He was the one who would have seemed frozen to them because they would have experienced years, while he wouldn't have changed much because it might have been weeks or months for him between visits. He'd come visit them after a few weeks from his perspective, and it would have been years for them. And if Belle was aging, time there wasn't frozen. That doesn't make any sense. Poor Gideon got screwed over in both rounds of his life. First time, he grows up in a hell dimension as a slave and has his heart ripped out to force him to do evil. Then he gets reset and he does seem to have a happy childhood with his parents, though you do have to wonder if he was able to have any kind of friends or peer relationships when they were off having adventures. Did they use Storybrooke as a home base so that he grew up seeing Snowflake and Robyn and his grandfather Maurice every so often when they came back for visits, or did they just leave for good and stay gone, so that Gideon grew up with his parents as his only friends? And then when he was college-aged, his parents went off to a place where time passed more quickly and his mother rapidly aged and died while he was still young, and then his father went off somewhere else entirely, leaving him utterly alone, and even more alone if they didn't maintain ties to Storybrooke so that he at least had his grandfather and the extended pseudo family.
  2. Snow still had her father up to adulthood, and the parents she had until she was ten were her birth parents. Even when she was cast out as an adult, she immediately found a friend who helped look after her. Emma would have the double whammy of knowing her birth parents had abandoned her, then losing her adoptive parents and getting thrown into the system. Her having known love and security would make foster care even more of a jolt instead of it being the only life she'd ever known, and it would amplify the fact that she didn't know who she was or why her parents ditched her. She'd have lost two sets of parents. Someone who'd known love and lost it might be more likely to put up WALLS. I got the impression that Neal being defensive about not having a choice and Emma being kind of eye-rolling about it was an actor headcanon, the only way they could play it with any truth. The writers might have really believed they'd shown that Neal had no choice and Emma acknowledged that, but then the actors played it like Neal knew he really could have handled it better, but claimed not to have had a choice as a defensive posture, and Emma was like, "Yeah, sure, right, whatever." With Emma's adoption choice, they did the mirrored scenes of her giving Henry up and refusing to even hold him, then the reset, when they made it look like in the fake memories she made the right choice. Then later, there was the scene in which Snow told her how she came to give Henry the storybook, and she mentioned Henry being depressed about being adopted and knowing his birth mother had given him away. Emma got defensive (sounding a lot like Neal) in insisting that she didn't have a choice and was doing what was best for Henry (or something like that), and Snow said that was the way Henry felt. This was in an episode when Emma and Henry were at odds and Emma was depicted as not being a great mother. I believe it was in the same episode when Regina and Henry had a TLK in spite of her not having her heart, and after they all had their memories back, they fell into easy conversation, like they'd always had this relationship in which they chatted about what was going on in their lives, something we'd never seen them do before. The show seems to be framing it as though Emma made a mistake and was wrong to give away her child. But at the same time, they show the relationship between Henry and Regina to be perfect and healthy and close, but it wouldn't have existed if Emma hadn't given him up. Their retcon to supposedly show that adoption can be a positive thing and that adoptive parents aren't evil ended up being their usual warping of the laws of the universe around Regina. Elsewhere in the show, they keep showing that blood ties are magically superior to adoptive ties, they show that foster parents are evil, and adoptive parents aren't as good for kids as their birth parents are, and giving up a child for adoption is abandonment, regardless of the circumstances. But Regina is the perfect mother as an adoptive mother, never mind all the emotional abuse they showed in season one or the fact that Henry and Regina were never shown to be close or affectionate before the retcon. He wasn't old enough to be chatting with her about her romantic life the last time he lived with her. That's not something he'd have casually chatted about like they'd never been apart.
  3. That would actually have fit well within the fairytale framework and still had the desired results on Emma. Say, she gets adopted as an infant, since beautiful, healthy baby girl mysteriously found in the woods with no sign of a family is going to have a waiting list to adopt her. She lives with a loving, caring adoptive family until she's about ten (the age her mother was when her mother died, for symmetry), then something happens to her adoptive parents (fire, car wreck, plane crash, etc.). They don't have extended family to take her in, so she lands in the foster system, and a 10-year-old is a lot harder to get adopted than an infant. Having had a good home and then being thrown into foster care would certainly lead to WALLS because it would have been a harsh contrast rather than the only life she ever knew. Then she runs away a few years later to find her birth parents so she'll have a home. I guess in this scenario Pinocchio would have had to be adopted separately, or he did get adopted with her but got in with the wrong crowd and still ran away when he was young enough that she wouldn't have recognized August? And you've got to wonder what he told the authorities when they were found. Did he claim to be her brother? Did he tell them his name was Pinocchio? He wouldn't have known that he was a character in a story (and Disney movie) in that world, so he'd have had no reason to give a fake name. You've got to wonder what they'd have thought about a kid claiming to be Pinocchio. I don't know, I kind of got the impression that they meant to show that her giving him up was wrong, especially in later seasons when that was contrasted against Regina The Perfect Mother. There was that rewind when she and Henry were given fake memories of her always having raised him, which made it look like that time around she made the right choice (with no mention of how she managed to pull off looking after a kid. Was she dragging around a small child when she ran into Cleo and got into the bail bonds business?). There was that weird echo of her saying she needed to give Henry his best chance when Cora abandoned Zelena because she needed to give herself her best chance. And there was the way they kept bringing up the effect on Henry of being given up, with her protests about not having really had a choice and doing it to give him his best chance coming across a lot like Neal's "I had no choice" about sending Emma to prison. Then again, the show seems to have really thought Neal had no choice, so that may just be the way I took it. It did seem like in seasons one and two that they presented it as the only choice Emma really could have made, but then when they started whitewashing Regina and trying to downplay the heroes, it was recast into some kind of selfish or cowardly choice. Though that goes beyond just having a child. Instead of having a mutual romantic or even sexual relationship, she controls Graham via his heart and forces him to have sex with her. Nottingham was in town, and they'd hit it off in the past, but it doesn't seem like she ever tried to honestly get together with anyone. She just used Graham as a sex toy. So that seems like less an indictment of adoptive parents and more just Regina being Regina, not being able to deal with someone she couldn't control, wanting it all but not being willing to compromise. Ah, one of my favorite bits of headcanon -- little Hook dumped in a port town the next time the ship where he was abandoned by his father came in to port, fending for himself, then rescued from street toughs by Liam, the son of a prominent admiral, who then adopts Hook. It would have explained his abandoned child backstory plus his fancy education and rapid rise in the navy, plus his hero worship of Liam (and Liam's rapid rise in the navy). Then there was a bit about how the admiral learned what the king was up to and raised objections, so the king sent him on what amounted to a suicide mission, and then the mission Liam and Killian were sent on was also meant as a suicide mission to tie off all the loose ends. That makes more sense than two random guys getting to be officers because they found a gemstone, and they still manage to move up in the navy with minimal training. Up to a point, it can work pretty well, since parents will do just about anything for their children and that provides a strong motivation, but I think they overused it to the point of cliche, and then they retconned things so it was diluted. That initial revelation that Rumple had rigged the whole curse so he could reach his son made for an interesting twist, but then they showed repeated other means of traveling between worlds, plus his son was in a place he could have reached at any time when the curse was cast, and he had means of knowing exactly where his son was. And then they never got into the complexity of how many lives he destroyed to reach his son and what his son thought of that. I don't think Cora was ever really doing anything for Regina's sake. She was doing it for herself, planning to rule through Regina or through Regina's child (the reason Regina drank the potion to make herself barren). But then that didn't make a lot of sense for Cora's character. She wouldn't have been happy pulling the strings for someone else. A terrible tragedy would have struck all of Henry Sr.'s older siblings and she'd have ended up as queen. I think that "doing it for the kids" was mostly used to absolve the villains (and as a writing shortcut for a quick and easy motivation). Then they showed that the Charmings were willing to sacrifice their child for the good of their people (but Snow wasn't willing to sacrifice Regina for the good of her people). So I guess the villains were supposed to be better parents?
  4. If they'd been doing it on purpose, it would have been a wonderful bit of plotting that everything that brought Regina down was Regina's own fault because she insisted on having it all, with no compromise or sharing with anyone else. She really brought about her own downfall. If it hadn't been for the curse that kept people from being able to leave town, Emma might have been able to leave in the first place instead of getting in a wreck (I guess Regina couldn't manipulate that part of the curse to let Emma out of town?). Even if it was coincidence that Emma couldn't leave, then arresting her for drunk driving and generally being a pain just made Emma want to stay longer. Then her weirdo behavior in trying to hurt Henry and gloating about it just ensured that Emma would stay. Emma was planning to leave at the end of the season, but Regina was too worried about maybe having to share Henry, so she baked the poisoned apple tart that led to Henry going under the sleeping curse and Emma breaking the Dark Curse (or the memory portion thereof). Emma's attempts to bring Regina down actually failed. She only won because Regina beat herself. But usually there's some kind of humbling going on when there's that kind of plot, where the villain is forced to realize she defeated herself and she either learns something or has to stew on it in her defeat. Here, they act like Regina was a victim of forces beyond herself. After season two, when they'd had the problematic portrayal of birth parents vs. adoptive parents pointed out to them, here's what they showed us: Adoptive father George turns out to have been a terrible, abusive father to James, who tries to run away, meets and instantly bonds with his birth father, and resents his brother for getting to be raised by their birth parents in poverty while he grew up as a prince with adoptive parents. Lily has a good, seemingly loving adoptive father, but she just can't seem to connect with him because he's not her biological parent, and all she wants is to find her biological family. Zelena is adopted by a couple who find her after she's abandoned, but while the mother is loving, the father is cruel and abusive to her and thinks she's wicked for having magic (in a land ruled by good witches). Zelena instantly bonds with her biological half-sister when she meets her, even before they realize they're related. (Though here, Cora is no better as a biological parent than the adoptive parents were.) Emma remains totally alone growing up, with the implication that it's because she was separated from her biological family. No one else wants a healthy baby girl who got a lot of media attention when she was found. Giving up a child for adoption is shown to be a sign of moral weakness and a failing. A family that can't afford to care for two children is terrible for giving up one of them. A teenage girl in prison who's been abandoned by her child's father is considered to have made the wrong decision for giving up her baby. But they thought they addressed the problem by declaring that Regina was a wonderful mother who had a "mother's touch" and whose key character trait was being maternal. Never mind that they showed us: She sent children to their deaths to the Blind Witch When Hansel and Gretl didn't want to be adopted by her because their father was alive, she separated them from their father When Owen didn't want to be adopted by her, she murdered his father, leaving him alone in the world She tried to give infant Henry back because he cried a lot She smiled and was glad when Henry was heartbroken after she set up a situation that would allow Henry to hear Emma say she didn't believe him She sent Henry to therapy to convince him that he was crazy for believing the truth She left Henry at home alone all Saturday while she went off to have sex She held the town hostage to force Henry to stay with her She wiped Henry's memory so he wouldn't know that she was scheming to murder his whole family When an impostor replaced Henry, she didn't notice When she was sad about a breakup, she told Henry to stay away and locked him out of his home
  5. I do remember feeling like maybe it would be okay after seeing this one. I have to give them credit, the WHook/Hook twist was really clever, a good solution to the tricky situation of needing to fit in Hook without Emma being available and without ruining the Emma and Hook story. It didn't quite work for me as a send-off for Emma, but it made me feel better about the season. Once we learn that WHook gave up alcohol and that was a big part of changing his life, and with them essentially treating Rogers as a recovering alcoholic, it makes it a lot more obvious how much drinking really does go on with these people and how they use alcohol as an emotional balm. When Hook Prime carries a flask full of rum at all times and Emma demands gulps from it when she's stressed, but then WHook says he gave up rum when he turned his life around, it makes you think about Hook Prime's relationship with alcohol.
  6. And that's a whole other can of worms. The people who should really feel insulted are foster parents, since they were all depicted as totally evil. Even the seemingly good one who wanted to adopt Emma turned out to be a psycho ice sorceress. Then they had to warp the depiction of the foster care system to make their point. For instance, an infant wouldn't have been in a crappy group home. There are foster parents who specialize in infants, and it's usually one child to a home. They might have kept Pinocchio (I wonder what he told them his name was) with her if they thought they might be related, but they wouldn't have been in a group setting with other kids. And they'd have been in Maine, not in Boston. Maine is actually its own state, not a suburb of Boston. Although the evil stepmother is a stock fairy tale character, in the first edition of the Grimm tales, a few of the evil stepmothers were actually biological mothers. The Grimms were pressured to change it in later editions because it reflected poorly on German motherhood for mothers to be so cruel to their children. For instance, in the first edition version, the mother who wants Hansel and Gretl to be stranded in the woods is their mother, not a stepmother. Then there are fathers. In the Grimm version of Cinderella, Cinderella's father is still alive while she's being abused by the new stepmother and stepsisters. There's no mention of him dying. There's also no mention of Snow White's father. He could still be alive. The weird thing about the later retcon of Regina and Henry having always had such a close, loving relationship is that in season one, not only did Regina outright emotionally abuse him, but even if you removed that aspect, she still wasn't what I'd consider a loving mother. She made no effort to spend time with him. Even when she was competing with Emma over him, she didn't step up to try to make him like her more. That would be the obvious ploy, you'd think. Your kid is drawn to his cool, younger biological mom who hangs out with him, and naturally the way to counter that would be to hang out with him, give him stuff, watch TV with him, etc. That not only might have changed his mind, but it would have kept him from having the opportunity to hang out with Emma. Saturday should have started with making pancakes/waffles, then maybe give him a video game console and have him show her how it works, then order pizza and have a Star Wars marathon. No Emma, without even looking like she's trying to control or limit him. Instead, she leaves him at home alone all Saturday with orders to do his homework and not watch TV so she can go off and spend the day raping Graham. Gee, I wonder what Henry will do while she's away. Duh. Regina wasn't very smart.
  7. I don't think the writers intended any kind of anti-adoption message. It was just their general ham-handed cluelessness. These are, after all, the writers who were surprised that viewers saw it as rape when Regina had a prisoner sent to her bedchamber after she ripped his heart out so she could control him. It seemed to me that it was much more about how Regina was a terrible mother because she was the Evil Queen (and a sociopathic narcissist) than because she was an adoptive mother. She was awful to everyone, not just Henry. In fact, she probably treated Henry better than she treated most other people. This is the woman who murdered her own father, the person she loved most, because her revenge was more important. I also don't think that they were necessarily showing that Emma was a better mother than Regina because she was the biological parent. Emma wasn't particularly maternal in season one. She was just nicer to Henry than Regina was, and Regina set such a low bar there that the bar was pretty much three feet underground. If Emma didn't put him in therapy to make him think he was crazy for believing the truth and didn't actively try to hurt him in order to score points against her rival, then Emma was a better mother than Regina. Emma in season one was more of a "cool aunt" type, someone Henry could talk to who was fun to hang out with. Emma was in no way up for the day-to-day work of parenting, keeping a kid fed and clothed, getting him to bed on time and up in the morning for school, supervising homework, dealing with him when he was sick, etc., and Regina did at least get credit for doing all that as Henry's mother. Even after the year in New York when Emma was totally responsible for Henry, it was Hook who was concerned about the kid getting proper nutrition. The way they handled things once the optics were pointed out to them was their typical thing of making it worse and then doubling down on the thing that was a problem in the first place. Waving their magic wand and suddenly deciding that Regina was Mother of the Century who'd always had such a close, loving relationship with Henry and was so maternal that random strangers noted how maternal she was ended up being as insulting to abuse victims as the Regina vs. Emma thing had come across to adoptive parents. That "you're remembering it wrong, I was a great mother and we had a wonderful relationship" retconning is the kind of gaslighting that abusers pull, and it denies the victims' experience. They did have the one episode in which Regina realized she was becoming her mother and she apologized, but then instead of really building a new relationship that acknowledged the harm, they acted like they were always super-close and loving. Though I guess it's not as bad as what they did with Snow and the stepmother relationship, with Snow taking the blame by saying she was such a brat. That's also an abused child pattern, with them coming to believe that they were responsible for their own abuse. Showing positive adoptive relationships would at least have balanced it out and made it clear that Regina was shown as a bad mother because she was evil, not because she was an adoptive mother. There are plenty of fairy tales about good adoptive relationships -- all those kindly woodsmen who find abandoned children and raise them as their own. They could have even had one of those relationships in the Enchanted Forest, with the curse putting the kid back with the biological parents who abandoned him and showing how bad those parents were. They sort of had a positive depiction of an adoptive relationship in season one with James and George, where James was shown as arrogant but not necessarily evil and George might have been a terrible person, but he genuinely loved his adopted son and deeply grieved his death. But instead of going with that depiction, they devolved it, so in season two James was an evil hedonist who committed genocide and George was fed up with him. Then in season five, we learn that James always resented David for getting to be with their biological parents (in abject poverty) while James was brought up as a prince by adoptive parents. And in season six, George was outright abusive to James, who tried to run away and instantly bonded with the biological father he'd never met before. Then we had Zelena, whose adoptive father was cruel and abusive, and she bonded instantly with her sister without even knowing she was her sister, and Cora got to go to heaven because she was able to reconcile with her biological family. So, they handled the criticism about the depiction of adoptive families about as well as they handled the criticism about rape, by whitewashing Regina and pretending she'd never done anything while doubling down and continuing to do the thing they'd been accused of.
  8. For a moment, I thought you meant an actual Hook, like a life-sized dummy they used for things like when he's thrown overboard, and I was trying to imagine how big that shadowbox would be. Then I saw the context and realized it was the hook he wore. Whew. Though a life-sized Hook dummy would be kind of interesting to have. That's probably the most apt, when he's putting on the hook for the first time. Or if you want to go sweeter with it, there's when they're walking to Camelot, and Emma is holding his hook, when when she holds his hook when they're dancing at the ball. For a darker bit, there's when he stabs Rumple with the poisoned hook.
  9. Considering that she spent the summer before season five doing intensive research on fairy tales relating to swans and especially dark swans, and that ended up having absolutely nothing to do with the story she was given, and considering that the elements of her character that she said were most important to her in interviews and the relationships she said were most important were totally neglected, I'm guessing that even if she voiced opinions about storylines, she was completely ignored. Wardrobe seems to have been the only place she was allowed a say (and not always for the best). Colin and Bobbie would be super fun. They could play off being mortal Enemies. But that would actually make sense because their characters did a lot together and had a lot of story connections. Putting "Emma" and "Maleficent" together is something of a headscratcher. I'm trying to remember if they even had a scene together, aside from when Emma fought the ghost Maleficent (that wasn't played by that actress). Maybe they met up once in season 4 when Emma talked to Lily? My pick for weirdest combo: Amy Acker (Nova) and Colin. He wasn't even on the show when she had her guest role, so their characters never interacted and they probably never met (at least not on that show). If she didn't continue to follow the series, she'd have no idea who he was or who his character was supposed to be. Or her and Rebecca Mader, for the same reason, and probably similar clash of character perspectives. Ooh, Zelena running into Astrid could have been highly amusing. Going back to the earlier discussion about who we want to see on panels, the writers or actors, I noticed from the Comic-Con panels I watched that it seems like the actors are there to draw the fans in, but it's the writers who have the most to say. It may be magnified in these online panels vs. in person because there are no screaming fans for the actors and no questions from the audience, which tend to be aimed at the actors. The Right Stuff panel was pretty ridiculous because there were about 12 actors, and most of them didn't have anything to say. The writers were the ones who actually had stuff to talk about, plus the moderator, since she was an actual astronaut. They could have had a better panel without the actors, but then they probably wouldn't have had as many people watch it. I noticed a similar thing on the Bill and Ted panel. The writers had great stories about coming up with these characters and how they got the first movie made. Keanu Reeves was probably the biggest name on the panel, and he barely said a word. He seemed content to just sit and listen to everyone else. But the panels I've watched from Once from past cons were different. The writers didn't say much more than "we thought it would be cool" or "we always wanted to ..." and the actors were talking about stuff like going to the rare book room at the NYPL to look up fairy tales, or reading the book his character came from and then watching all the film versions to see all the ways he'd been portrayed previously. It's like the actors put far more thought and research into the show than the writers did.
  10. Don't forget her son hugging her murderer after her husband was killed by her murderer's boyfriend, who raped her husband while pretending to be her and conceived a child with him. If anyone on this show got the short end of the stick, it was Marian. And she really was a cool character who would have been an asset to the show. Zelena could be fun, but it was hard to accept her as a "hero" after what we saw her do fairly recently and to these characters. I just found myself imagining Marian as a deputy sheriff or running for mayor against Regina.
  11. And she seemed to bear the brunt of most of the crazy. To the extreme Evil Regals, Emma (and therefore Jen) was seen as the chief rival to Regina, so they were constantly on the attack and would parse everything she said to get ammunition. To most of the extreme Swan Queeners, Emma was nothing more than a prize for Regina to be given, and anything Jen said that wasn't supportive of their ship was seen as standing in the way. She couldn't even say anything about the relationship her character was actually in on the show without getting blasted for not being supportive of Swan Queen, and that got her accused of being homophobic. But then there was the faction of Captain Swan fans that got their reality blurred with fantasy and parsed everything to look for signs she was secretly in a relationship with Colin, and there were the fans that got angry if she wasn't talking about Emma's relationship with Hook all the time or if she placated the Swan Queeners by doing something like taking a picture with Lana. It seems like she was constantly under attack. I can definitely see not wanting to stir that all up again. The longer you get from when the show was on the air, the more likely it is that it's the most intense, obsessed fans who are still caught up in the fandom enough to go to conventions and that they'd have to deal with. Even when the actors are lovely people, seeing them in real life can change the way you see a show. I got to meet William B. Davis, "Cancer Man" from the X-Files, fairly early in the show's run, and he's such a sweet, kind person that it made it hard to hate his character anymore. I guess the same sort of thing happens when you see actors in different roles. If I liked them in a previous role, that halo tends to transfer to the new character so that I at least give them the benefit of the doubt at first. But if I disliked the previous character, it may take a while for me to warm up to the new one. It seems like a bigger difference when it's the actor's real personality because that tends to underlie everything they do once you know something about what they're really like. I wonder if it's more intense for TV actors because they're in the same role for the equivalent of multiple movies a year, so they're more closely associated with that one character, and therefore the clash between actor and character or character and other roles seems sharper. With actors you mostly see in movies, you seldom see them playing the same character in more than one movie a year. If they do multiple movies, they're in multiple roles, and you're less likely to strongly associate them with any one role. You're more aware of this being an actor playing roles. There's still some crazy fandom (see Star Wars), but maybe the association with a particular character fans are obsessed with isn't quite as strong.
  12. The video from what I believe was Jen's last Once-related convention (after she left, since she had the short hair) was pretty painful. Most of the questions were people wanting her and Colin to do the dance from the season 3 finale or sing their numbers from the musical (they claimed they didn't remember either because so much time had passed since then and moved it along). I can't imagine wanting to keep dealing with questions like that long after leaving a show. It's very much the "dance, monkey, dance" thing or being forced to play out fans' fantasies. Even good questions that dig into the characterization would be hard to answer years after you've played that character. Everything is still fresh for fans who are obsessively rewatching, but for the actors, it would be like being asked why you did an assignment a particular way years after you left a job and you barely even remember the assignment, let alone what you were thinking when you did it. I'm always a little nervous about seeing actors as themselves because I don't want their real selves to ruin the characters for me. I'm well aware that they're entirely different people. I generally avoid meeting actors whose characters I really like (not that this is a huge issue, but I don't get autographs at conventions, or things like that). An interview with an actor who really puts a lot of thought and analysis into their work can be good with a good interviewer, as long as they avoid or at least screen questions from the audience. The best ones I've seen involved people writing their questions on cards rather than letting people line up at a microphone. That avoids all those long, rambling questions that are really more of a comment, requests for hugs, requests for the actors to re-enact specific scenes, or questions about what the actors think about erotic fanfic about their characters and whether or not that pairing will happen on the show (or if they want that pairing to happen on the show). But I'm much more interested in hearing from the writers -- assuming they're interesting and have something to say and aren't real jerks. I haven't been very impressed with A&E on panels. They don't seem to put much thought into their writing beyond "wouldn't it be cool?" In that case, I think the actors actually put more thought into the show than the writers did.
  13. Well, she declined to stay on for season seven, so she was kind of done with it while the show was on. Though I believe she did at least one convention after she left. There are a lot of factors at work -- time availability, whether they're busy with other things, how much they need the money from convention appearances, how much they enjoy conventions, what kinds of experiences they've had with conventions, whether they're worried about being typecast in that role and would rather move on instead of continuing to connect themselves to that role. Josh and Ginny have young children and both of them have been busy with other projects, so they're probably not going to want to spend weekends doing conventions. Being on a TV show means long hours and then whatever work they have to do to promote that show. I can see where spending any free time that leaves promoting a show that's over wouldn't be very appealing unless conventions are something they really enjoy.
  14. The Right Stuff panel was interesting, but Colin spoke once, aside from when they had everyone on the panel give their one word that describes the series. He just talked about seeing alligators in Florida when shooting and how getting to sit in a classic Corvette helped him pretend to be American. There were a lot of people on the panel, so to talk, they had to just dive in, and it took Mae Jemisen specifically asking him a question near the end of the panel before he said anything. And he turned bright red as soon as he started talking, bless his heart. It sounds like it's not necessarily a direct adaptation of the novel. They were already talking about a season two that would branch off and tell some other stories. I couldn't tell if that meant adding characters or if they were going to move away from the original cast. The guy who played the Author was also in the cast, playing the head of the manned spaceflight program. On the panel, his hair was bleached a really yellow blond, which looked kind of weird because it was so different. Colin basically looked like Rogers, including the black t-shirt. On the clips from the show, he was just about unrecognizable.
  15. It sounds like he must have been making portals because she knew what happened in Wonderland after she left, and Rabbit was there, watching her with her daughter. Maybe it would have been a bit much to ask for a weekly portal to England for Sunday dinner, but there was clearly some communication, so visiting would have been an option. On the other hand, she only went back to England the second time because she believed Cyrus was dead and she was in danger from Ana. If they hadn't been attacked and if she hadn't lost Cyrus, it sounds like she'd planned to stay there with him forever. She wanted the Rabbit on hand to get her and Cyrus back to England after he was free because he was in danger from Jafar. It was the constant danger in Wonderland that she wanted to get away from, but that danger was gone when Cyrus was no longer a genie and she no longer had his wishes, which made both of them targets, and when Ana turned good and Jafar was neutralized. There might still have been bandits and criminals, but those existed in England, too, and that seems to have been part of what Will and Ana cleaned up in Wonderland. This may just be my Army brat background speaking, where I don't have strong ties to any particular place and associate "home" with people, but it seems to me like what Alice wanted in "home" was love, safety, and security. She'd have Cyrus wherever she went, and therefore also any children they had. In England, she had a father she was rebuilding a relationship with, a stepmother who didn't seem to be entirely on board (judging by her reactions at the wedding), and a half sister who liked her (but whose mother likely would have disapproved of Alice and Cyrus getting too close to her). Very likely, the reconciliation with her father was the strongest motivation behind her staying in England initially. Whether he would have truly unbent or been swayed by his wife is a question. On the other hand, in Wonderland, she'd have been near a friend who was like a brother and another person who was becoming a friend, along with the Rabbit family, possibly Cyrus's brothers (depending on where they ended up). I also wonder how they made a living in England. It didn't seem like Alice's father was super wealthy, not enough to support Alice's family on top of his own. What kind of job could Cyrus have had? Any education or training he had wouldn't have applied in England. Alice wouldn't have been able to have a career there. In Wonderland, they'd have been able to help Will and Ana take care of things. They could have had a house, or possibly a suite in the castle, so no more sleeping under the stars or camping in their lovenest, and they'd have had something useful to do that they were qualified for. The most likely way I could see things going is Alice initially wanting to stay in England for her father's sake, and it being her father who notices how bored and unhappy they are in England and suggesting they go back to Wonderland when the Rabbit comes for a visit, as long as the Rabbit promises to bring them back for the occasional visit. They couldn't even talk about who Cyrus is or where he was from. They'd have had to make up some vague background for him, like he's from some small kingdom in the Middle East no one has heard of and educated in England, or something like that.
×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size