Spoiler Discussion: The apple was poisoned?!

[Camera One]

Yeah, when I went to search, there were a lot of articles that paraphrased, and since the original quote was so ambiguous, it was really hard to get at the "truth".

[KingOfHearts]

They say it's a "storyline" but not an "arc". Huh?

[Camera One]

As usual, they're talking out of both sides of their mouth.  Another relevant quote is:

Quote

 

During the panel, however, moderator Yvette Nicole Brown asked if Once Upon a Time will have a "prominent LGBTQ storyline".

Showrunner Edward Kitsis then confirmed: "I would say that we are planning to do it this year."

 

Do "it" as in the storyline.  But it's not an arc.  However, it's "prominent".  

How different is this from how they described the Red/Dorothy thing, when they said the following:

Quote

 

“True Love's kiss has been a staple of this show since the beginning. This past Sunday's episode was just another example of how in a fairy tale, as in life, love is love,” co-creators Adam Horowitz and Eddy Kitsis said in a statement about the LGBT storyline.

“We wanted to tell it no differently than we would with Robin and Regina or Snow and Charming. We just wanted to tell a love story,” Kitsis said. “For us, it's a love story like any other and it's something we're excited about.”

Horowitz added that the storyline will be as “exciting, emotional and heartfelt as any other love story.” 

 

Edited July 31, 2017 by Camera One

[Featherhat]

34 minutes ago, Camera One said:

As usual, they're talking out of both sides of their mouth.  Another relevant quote is:

Do "it" as in the storyline.  But it's not an arc.  However, it's "prominent".  

How different is this from how they described the Red/Dorothy thing, when they said the following:

Yeah that makes everything clear as mud. Seriously it wouldn't surprise me if it turned out exactly like Red/Dorothy after comparing those quotes. Maybe a bit longer to encourage more articles about the show in its reboot year. [/cynical]

From that it could be a couple, could be the Lady Tremaine situation Tennisgurl outlined above or could be a "gay character pining for straight friend ala Mulan" or any mix of that.

[tennisgurl]

Yeah, Red/Dorothy had such an epic romance, that they only needed like one episode to tell it. To be fair to them though, I would be as not invested in the one day romance of a heterosexual couple as a in a gay couple, so...equality?

[Noneofyourbusiness]

5 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

They say it's a "storyline" but not an "arc". Huh?

It's an ongoing subplot that's not related to the main plot?

[Anna35]

On 7/31/2017 at 3:02 AM, Camera One said:

Henry as true lead will only last one season.  By then, they'll run out of "surprises" for him and he will be back to being as boring as Snow or Emma to A&E.

Henry is the lead in name only. His character will just be used to introduce Cinderella 2 as the new heroine and to link her with Regina. He'll quickly become the love interest to Cindy imo.

[sharky]

Can't link to the photos because I'm on mobile, but did anyone else see the set photos yesterday of Lana in jeans? Is it wrong for me to actually like this new look on Regina? It feels weird to say I like it but I do. 

[legaleagle53]

Oh, by the way, adult Gideon is back.

[Camera One]

Bringing back all the fan favorites, I see.  I guess we'll see how horrible and mean Belle and Gideon were to leave poor Wumple all alone and stuck in a new Curse.  Or will Rumple be a hero who steps up, and Belle and Gideon will fawn over what a great guy he is deep inside?

Edited August 1, 2017 by Camera One

[Camera One]

Some useful info in terms of timeline:

Quote

Adam Horowitz‏ @AdamHorowitzLA  2h2 hours ago

Replying to @bellefrenchh  We haven't said we're jumping ahead a decade. That's just speculation. Won't confirm or deny! #NoSpoilers

[KingOfHearts]

11 minutes ago, Camera One said:

Some useful info in terms of timeline:

Well obviously it has to be more than a decade, since Henry doesn't meet Lucy's mother until several years after he leaves Storybrooke.

[RadioGirl27]

1 minute ago, RadioGirl27 said:

TVLine Items: Once Adds a Wicked New Witch, Y&R Scribes Exit and More

So, who is this? Adult Robin? Or someone else? 

[InsertWordHere]

1 minute ago, KingOfHearts said:

Well obviously it has to be more than a decade, since Henry doesn't meet Lucy's mother until several years after he leaves Storybrooke.

Are we sure they're not going to say time moves differently in the alt world? It would be sort of the opposite of what I thought they were going to do with Neverland, which was to have the Nevengers think they were only gone two weeks while two years have passed in Storybrooke. This time Henry would have time to grow up (and let's face it, the kid has canonically always been a fast grower) without having to miss too much of Regina's life. 

[Camera One]

15 minutes ago, RadioGirl27 said:

So, who is this? Adult Robin? Or someone else? 

It's the Hungarian Wicked Witch of the West.

[legaleagle53]

Here's the story about adult Gideon's return, and it appears to directly contradict what Adam said about a time jump of a decade.  Then again, maybe he's telling the truth, and we won't just jump ahead ONE decade, but nearly THREE.

And Adam just tweeted that the new character being played by Emma Booth is NOT the Wicked Witch.

Just keep backpedaling, Adam.  Did a certain Twitter addict (who shall remain nameless) take lessons from you?

Edited August 1, 2017 by legaleagle53

[Kktjones]

The funny thing is, I think everyone thought the time jump was 10 years because that's what Adam said in one of the interviews:

All I have to say is that this timeline is completely f-ed up. So you have characters that should be much older staying the same age while others are rapidly aging. Any way you look at it, parents are missing out on years of seeing their kids age, or characters are stuck in a curse for so long it's allowing other characters to age while they stay the same. Basically it's a complete mess...

Edited August 1, 2017 by Kktjones

[CCTC]

Since they got rid of most of the cast, they obviously need to introduce a number of new characters.  I am just concerned it is going to be like last year where they introduce a number of new things at once and then do not follow up with most of them for a number of episodes so there is hardly any dramatic tension, continuity, or cohesion.  I can see a lot of characters having splashy entrances and then given poor follow up for development.    As has been mentioned a number of times, none of the ideas seem that fresh and seem to be a retread of things they have already done, sometimes multiple times.

[sharky]

Gideon? Groan. I've been rewatching 5B and cheered when Belle went under a sleeping curse. Do not want.

I wonder if Henry grows up 10 years with his travels but when he comes back to our realm, he returns in the same year he left. Wibbly wobbly timey wimey.

Edited August 1, 2017 by sharky

[Shanna Marie]

1 hour ago, InsertWordHere said:

Are we sure they're not going to say time moves differently in the alt world?

I'm pretty sure that's how they'll deal with Henry. In his realm travels and quest to be a hero, he'll visit a world that moves faster, like the world Gideon grew up in during childhood #1. So a few years go by in Storybrooke, he leaves home, decades pass for him but it's still maybe only a year or so in Storybrooke. They'd just catch up to 2017-18 rather than jumping ahead in our world.

However, that doesn't explain adult Gideon. Maybe another dream? Someone else kidnaps baby Gideon and takes him to an aging-faster world? The comments to the Facebook post of this announcement were amusing. Mostly "why?"

[Camera One]

Kidnapped by The Vaguely Grey Fairy... Rumple's Grandma?

Quote

Adam Horowitz‏ @AdamHorowitzLA  52m52 minutes ago

There is only one wicked witch on #onceuponatime -- no one could EVER replace the awesomeness that is @bexmader !

But there is more than one Cinderella and more than one Lady Tremaine and more than one Alice in Wonderland.  Because other people CAN replace the awesomeness that is those other actresses.  And don't forget the French and Italian Snow Whites, don't let the door hit you on the way out, Ginny.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Camera One

[PixiePaws1]

56 minutes ago, CCTC said:

 I am just concerned it is going to be like last year where they introduce a number of new things at once and then do not follow up with most of them for a number of episodes so there is hardly any dramatic tension, continuity, or cohesion. 

...and that's the synopsis for s7, folks. Courtesy of CCTC who has obviously been lurking in the writers' room.

Edited August 1, 2017 by PixiePaws1

[Souris]

Is it just me or does a lot of info about S7 seem designed to upset fans? Emma back for only one ep, Adam refusing to do anything to calm fans' worries that she's being killed off, now the "wicked" witch business. Honestly, I don't think people would be talking about the show much at all except for fans being worried and cranky. Maybe that's the only way they can figure out to create any buzz at all -- as long as people are posting about the show, it doesn't matter whether it's positive or negative.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Souris

[KingOfHearts]

Can't wait for Not!Emma, Not!Snow, Not!Charming, and Not!Zelena. Doesn't this sound like the perfect setup to recast the main characters? It's almost like it was designed for it, despite what Adam says.

[Camera One]

Zelena can never be replaced!  LOL, Adam just spent 4 hours doing damage control about that point.  It's a wonder he has any time left over for actual writing.

[KingOfHearts]

8 minutes ago, Camera One said:

Zelena can never be replaced!  LOL, Adam just spent 4 hours doing damage control about that point.  It's a wonder he has any time left over for actual writing.

Now I know how shippers feel when Adam attempts to placate them. #JusticeForZelena

[Camera One]

Now onto a new topic, if you need clarification on this:

Quote

Adam Horowitz‏  @AdamHorowitzLA

Replying to @BlueMonkey19  we're not replacing Emma. I've never said that. Emma is an irreplaceable character on ONCE.

Adam Horowitz‏ @AdamHorowitzLA  

Replying to @BlueMonkey19 @destiny48981430  Nope. Have never said there will be a new savior to replace Emma.

Adam Horowitz‏ @AdamHorowitzLA  

Replying to @destiny48981430 @BlueMonkey19  we're not replacing Emma

Anyone care to tweet Adam about your outrage that he might recast Merida?

Edited August 2, 2017 by Camera One

[Souris]

Whuh, are people actually fearing they're replacing Emma? I'd think them killing her off is the greater worry.

[Shanna Marie]

Haven't they talked repeatedly about there being a new Savior? All that stuff about new worlds and new stories, which means new Saviors. I could swear there was specifically a quote about a new Savior.

31 minutes ago, Camera One said:

Anyone care to tweet Adam about your outrage that he might recast Merida?

Given that the entire season seems to be made up of things that fans seemed to like the least, I wouldn't be at all surprised if we got some iteration of Merida. I think the original actress refused to come back or sign on as a regular, right? (where do we send the fruit basket and thank you card?) So it would have to be a new version.

[Camera One]

I've just been hired as the press release writer for "Once".  I wanted to check with you all to see if it might be misleading to release this to the press or not.

Once has cast a new recurring character for Season 7 with skin white as snow, lips red as blood, hair black as ebony.  

I've been sworn to secrecy, but it describes the following new recurring character coming on the show:

Spoiler

Pippi Longstocking

Edited August 2, 2017 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

I could swear there was specifically a quote about a new Savior

Pretty sure it was in the ComicCon trailer. It was over a shot of Henry on his motorbike, so I assumed it was him.

Why wouldn't fans be outraged by the setup for S7? Let's be real, here. Even if no one important is being "replaced", it still looks sketchy. It's not very marketable. You've got old characters gone, and new characters that are just glorified recasts. Why, exactly, would fans be happy? Usually A&E can come up with at least an interesting concept, but now it's not even that. It's less "failure to reach potential" and more "failure to launch at all".

Edited August 2, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[scenicbyway]

Please oh please bring back Merida, I'm fairly sure Gideon is her true love....said no one ever!  Ugh.

i think people were more worried this new blonde would be playing Emma, thus replacing Jen.

[Camera One]

Gideon's age question... maybe it will go something like this...

BELLE: Rumple, come quick!  It's only our baby's second birthday but he already looks like he's 7!  What's going on!

RUMPLE: It is the Rapid Aging Curse.  My mother must have put that on him before she died!

REGINA: Hello everyone.  This is a public service announcement, sponsored by New Beginnings Not! Coffee Shop.  The town of Storybrooke is under great threat from Evil Curse Caster #128, but never fear - your respected Queen is here.  I will send the evil away before he/she/it casts the Curse by sending them to oblivion with this - very very very very very very very last magic bean.

RUMPLE: Belle.  The only way to save Gideon is to use that magic bean to send him to a land where time moves differently.

BELLE: But won't that screw over everyone else?

RUMPLE: And?  What else is new?

GIDEON: Hi, I'm already 30.

RUMPLE:  Belle!  Gideon!  You have to GO!  The Land Where Time Moves Differently Depending On What's Convenient For The Storyline So We Can Get Rid Of You Two Forever will only allow two immigrants with one bean.  So I have to stay!  It's such a sacrifice for me.  [Rumple does sad face as dramatic music plays]

Edited August 2, 2017 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

Since time works differently in the Dark Realm, couldn't Gideon appear in the future before having ever come to Storybrooke? Then, you know, brew some memory tea so he forgets he ever met Henry or whoever. Easy.

Edited August 2, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[KAOS Agent]

Every time I think this show can't possibly come up with something to make me less interested, they somehow manage to do so. Gideon returns? A new Zelena? It's like they have a dart board with characters on it and they're picking new ones to add that way. None of this seems organic. Maybe Lady Tremaine will go the way of Hyde and be offed in the Rumpel centric in episode 4. There's the Surprise! Twist! no one saw coming. 

Also, I thought this season was supposed to be accessible to new viewers. Hook and Rumpel centrics right off the bat that involve previous regulars are not conducive to that. Having their centrics early implies that they are desperate to retain the audience they've got and aren't expecting new viewers.

[Mitch]

On 8/1/2017 at 11:20 PM, KAOS Agent said:

Every time I think this show can't possibly come up with something to make me less interested, they somehow manage to do so. Gideon returns? A new Zelena? It's like they have a dart board with characters on it and they're picking new ones to add that way. None of this seems organic. Maybe Lady Tremaine will go the way of Hyde and be offed in the Rumpel centric in episode 4. There's the Surprise! Twist! no one saw coming. 

Also, I thought this season was supposed to be accessible to new viewers. Hook and Rumpel centrics right off the bat that involve previous regulars are not conducive to that. Having their centrics early implies that they are desperate to retain the audience they've got and aren't expecting new viewers.

They should have just started with all new characters as others have said. I can see them using a grown up Henry to bridge the shows, but they should have dropped Hook, Regina and Rump and just said everyone was back in SB happy..maybe have people make guest appearances but this whole new versions of old characters, and Henry just being a stand in for Emma..is stupid and boring...its new, but its not.

I actually like the concept of fictional characters living in an urban setting, and even a younger cast is okay, but the world of fiction is far and wide, and we don't need to keep pumping the dull old Disney characters anymore..or use characters from settings we already visited..but we havent seen them yet...like Mombi or the Gnome King filling in for Lady Tremaine who we have seen before, etc. And if they truly live in a bubble that is half our world and half theirs with some magic, but it is hard to come by.. (I thought the best thing about the finale was that the only magic used during the Curse was pushing Henry down the stairs (hahahaha go Fiona!!!) it could be interesting..they could actually start fresh without the convoluted back stories they screwed up the first time...now we have to sit through what happened to Emma and the Chamrings, Belle and boring freaking Gideon and they have to explain why some characters didnt age....and they always trip themselves up with their own mythology. Keep it simple STUPIDS...S1 was basic..there is curse, they are from another world, its Regina vs. Emma, basic stuff that is accessible for the viewers. I like a deep mythology and back stories..if the writers can do it and these guys cant.

[Shanna Marie]

If they're going to rehash stories they've already dealt with, but with "new" versions, why not use some of the ones they blew past rather than those involving recurring characters? True, they didn't exactly delve deeply into the Cinderella story, but she was the center of two episodes with flashbacks that showed the major elements of the Cinderella story, with ramifications in the present, and she was a somewhat recurring character who's been living in Storybrooke all along. Why not revisit Rapunzel, maybe say that this was the "real" one, since the one we saw was something different happening? They could have cast Henry as the "Flynn" character and had them go on adventures together in the quest for her to find her family again. Imagine Rapunzel braiding up her hair so she could ride on the back of Henry's motorcycle as they went looking for the place the lanterns came from (if they're doing the "Tangled" version). Or just her wanting to explore after being cooped up in that tower all the time.

[Camera One]

Your Rapunzel idea would have worked much better and would not have felt so much like re-tread.  Granted, Mother Gothel was a pretty lame villain, but they could have done a composite with the original fairy tale version witch, or maybe even combined it with the "Into the Woods" witch character.

It is a puzzler why they decided to do Cinderella again.  One reason might be they heard good feedback about "The Other Shoe" and didn't realize it was good because of the older actress and not because that was a well written episode.  Another reason might be their need to have a "big name"... Rapunzel is big but not as big as Cinderella.  A third reason, for the long-term, was they might have wanted an excuse to re-tread stories they had already done.  They might think this will provide shocking surprises, when we find out it's not the stories that they told before.

As Mitch said, this "reboot" sounds like it's convoluted as hell with the need to explain what happened.  But then again, it's what A&E loves best.  Keep the audience in suspense finding out what really happened.  Except in this case, no one cares.

[Shanna Marie]

I guess one problem with the Rapunzel story is that the flashback opportunities are limited. There's the backstory of how the witch got her, whether it's the traditional fairy tale version of her father stealing greens or the Tangled version of the witch wanting the magic that went into Rapunzel's hair, and then there's lots of time hanging out alone in a tower. And you know they won't give up the backstory flashbacks -- though it seems like the setup for this season might use less of them if there's the present and then the backstory is mostly in what happened with Henry that set up the new curse.

With Cinderella, there's at least some interaction with other people and more characters. There are the stepmother and stepsisters, maybe the story of how the stepmother came to marry the father (was she pulling a Cora/Regina and it was part of a larger scheme? Did she murder him?), there are stories about Cinderella and her relationships with them, stories about the reasons for the ball, the state of the kingdom, etc. Since Henry ends up with Cinderella, does that mean that the prince is going to turn out to be a jerk or a bad guy, like Cinderella is fleeing the ball not just because of the midnight thing but because she's using the convenient excuse to get away from him -- it's been lovely, but oops, gotta go before I turn into a pumpkin, bye! And this is why it was dumb to announce ahead of time that Cinderella is going to be Henry's "epic" romance. Why not keep us guessing or let us decide whether it's going to end up being epic? Wouldn't it be more effective for us to think that obviously she'll end up with the prince because that's how the story goes, even though we kind of hope it's Henry and think they have more chemistry, and then it's a pleasant surprise when she ditches the prince for Henry? It seems like the most popular ships in general (all of TV, not just this show) are the ones where the audience has to put together clues and subtext and wonder if the writers and actors meant to do that or did it just happen, and we pull for it to happen long before it becomes overt on the show. That makes it counterproductive to just say "okay, here's the love interest, and it's going to be epic!" before we see any of it.

[Camera One]

26 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

With Cinderella, there's at least some interaction with other people and more characters. There are the stepmother and stepsisters, maybe the story of how the stepmother came to marry the father (was she pulling a Cora/Regina and it was part of a larger scheme? Did she murder him?), there are stories about Cinderella and her relationships with them, stories about the reasons for the ball, the state of the kingdom, etc. Since Henry ends up with Cinderella, does that mean that the prince is going to turn out to be a jerk or a bad guy, like Cinderella is fleeing the ball not just because of the midnight thing but because she's using the convenient excuse to get away from him -- it's been lovely, but oops, gotta go before I turn into a pumpkin, bye! 

That's a good point about Cinderella.  In reality, A&E will end up addressing 0.5% of that potential.  We know they have zero interest in the state of the kingdom.  He probably has zero interest in Cinderella's parents either.  The Prince potentially could be developed since he didn't want to be in an arranged marriage and didn't seem keen to become a king, but look how interested they were in Charming's transition from shepherd to king.  

In some ways, I think the Writers' current sudden interest in "Cinderella" is kind of forced.  I think it spoke volumes that they chose to blow Cinderella off in a one-off featuring Gold in Season 1 and didn't truly address her again until Season 6.  I think it's in hindsight that they realized that Lady Tremaine is one of the great Disney villains.  So I'm wary of this new sudden interest in the story.  Not to mention they might have thrown away their "best" ideas (aka Cinders was such a meanie to the stepsister that only she had to apologize!) in "The Other Shoe".

With Rapunzel, they could have made her able to shapeshift and leave the Tower.  Maybe Blue gives her three nights of freedom, for her to change her destiny or something, and on her first night, she meets Henry.  They could have expanded the roles of her guilt-ridden and worried parents (but of course A&E couldn't care less about them).  But as you said, Rapunzel doesn't have any other friends, and there are no stepsisters, so the number of characters and situations are indeed limited.  But they could have changed that... maybe Tiana can become a frog and is her friend or something.  Or there's a magical portal to Notre Dame in Paris on top of the tower and she gets visits from Quasimodo.  

Edited August 3, 2017 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

I think it's in hindsight that they realized that Lady Tremaine is one of the great Disney villains.  

I suspect that came from the recent live action version. They didn't get the idea of actually showing us Lady Tremaine until after we saw Cate Blanchett play the role. Then suddenly they revisited Cinderella. That may or may not also have something to do with Round 2, with Lady Tremaine apparently as Regina 2.0, which means little Cinderella will have done something to ruin Lady Tremaine's happiness, so she marries Cinderella's father in order to get her revenge. Henry won't notice any of these parallels to Regina.

Didn't they imply in season one that Ashley was living with her stepmother and at least one stepsister while working as a maid at the inn? Which makes them being in Untold Stories not fit.

I'm a little surprised that in revisiting Cinderella, they didn't go all-in with their twists and borrow from the Grimm (the series, not the fairytale collectors) version, in which Cinderella is actually the villain, for real -- a literal monster who terrorized her stepmother and stepsisters.

[Camera One]

I'm guessing their intention in this case was to find an "epic" love story for Henry which would replicate what they had with Snow and Charming in Season 1.  Good luck making that happen.  It was the actors who gave those characters the insta-chemistry that sustained an ultimately poorly written storyline which did very little exploring of Snow or Charming, beyond giving them external threats to overcome.

[superloislane]

2 hours ago, Camera One said:

I'm guessing their intention in this case was to find an "epic" love story for Henry which would replicate what they had with Snow and Charming in Season 1.  Good luck making that happen.  

Snow White and Prince Charming were already an iconic Disney romance so the show could use them as their base. There's nothing iconic about Cinderella and...Henry Mills from Storybrooke. I don't care if they try to put Prince before his name, he's still just annoying Henry Mills from Storybrooke.

[Domenicholas]

Do you think that the writers will make Cinderella 2.0's family tree as convoluted as Henry's?

Cinderella is the daughter of Rapunzel and Eugene who married Lady Tremaine when Rapunzel died, and Lady Tremaine is really an older Lily whose bitter because her first husband Lampwick left her alone with two daughters.

[PixiePaws1]

11 minutes ago, Domenicholas said:

Do you think that the writers will make Cinderella 2.0's family tree as convoluted as Henry's?

Cinderella is the daughter of Rapunzel and Eugene who married Lady Tremaine when Rapunzel died, and Lady Tremaine is really an older Lily whose bitter because her first husband Lampwick left her alone with two daughters.

I think it depends on how long it takes for A&E to get bored with this particular shiny toy....their attention appears distressingly short on anyone except Regina. Once they lose interest in New!Cinders her family tree, convoluted or not, won't be a blip on their radar.

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

Do you think that the writers will make Cinderella 2.0's family tree as convoluted as Henry's?

How long before we figure out Tiana is really Cinderella's birth mother?

[Kktjones]

So today they are filming in the Enchanted Forest with Old!Henry, Lana dressed as the Evil Queen and Colin in his pirate costume. I've stopped even trying to understand what they are doing. I know they've never been good about continuity, but this season is really going to mess things up, isn't it? I'm just praying for no further character assassination for Hook. I can just imagine A&E now: "Wouldn't it be cool if Hook killed one of Cinderella's parents?"

[PixiePaws1]

I wonder if they 'current' Killian, Regina and Rumple jump back into their younger bodies about the time that s6 ended. Then they get cursed and stuck. That would explain the non aging. 

[KAOS Agent]

I'm honestly thinking the #nospoilers thing is just Adam's way of avoiding any kinds of questions he doesn't actually have an answer for. Whatever timey-wimey logic they're using will be very easy to either make fun of or poke holes in, so everything, including the basic plot, is #nospoilers.

Would anyone buy a book by an author whose last few books have been disappointing if the back cover of the latest book read, "The characters are doing interesting stuff, so you should read this book to find out what this interesting stuff is." Or "Henry and Not!Original!Cinderella have a totally epic romance! Buy this book to discover its epic-ness!" That's not going to inspire people to check it out. You have to provide some basic idea of what the audience is going to get. Thus far I'm getting this is S1 only with Henry as Emma. Why would a watch a dull redo of S1 when I have the original available to me?

I saw nothing spoiler-wise come out of SDCC. I haven't seen much at all from the roundtables. Nothing seemed to come from the panel. There doesn't seem to be any reporting on filming if it doesn't include Hook, Regina or Rumpel. Even people who are excited about the new season don't have anything. There is no buzz. Spoilers can indeed spoil the fun, but you gotta give people a reason to watch.

[Camera One]

22 minutes ago, KAOS Agent said:

I'm honestly thinking the #nospoilers thing is just Adam's way of avoiding any kinds of questions he doesn't actually have an answer for. Whatever timey-wimey logic they're using will be very easy to either make fun of or poke holes in, so everything, including the basic plot, is #nospoilers.

It also provides them leeway to do a 180 with the storyline when they feel like it.  They don't seem to be all that detail-oriented, so I wouldn't be surprised if they only have a sketchy outline of the season.  I think they really do think it's the surprise factor that packs the punch and "elevates" their writing, so that's a big part of it too.

Thinking about their Season 6 teases, their storylines are so simple and flimsy that if they said it, that would be it.  Last year, they teased that Aladdin had been a Savior and you would see Jasmine and Jafar.  And the basic storyline for 6A was something bad happened to Agrabah and Aladdin was gave up his Savior-ness and came to Storybrooke.

Edited August 4, 2017 by Camera One