Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

The Storybrooke Daily Mirror: OUaT in the Media, Cons and Other Real Life Encounters

maraleia

By maraleia
in Once Upon A Time

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

buildmeupbuttercup
buildmeupbuttercup

I have not commented on this forum for years but I was logging on to weigh in on how despicable and disturbing I found it that they reached for their old reliable "rape by deception" for their latest

tennisgurl
tennisgurl

You know, I have such mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, this show needed to be done. Its been running on fumes for a long time, and I want the talented cast to get to move onto new, better,

Cindy McLennan
Cindy McLennan

Hey everyone, it only took me three tries to remember my password. I thought of you all as soon as I heard Once Upon a Time had been cancelled. Like most of you, I think it should have ended last

Camera One

Camera One

(edited)

I didn't find the direction in the episode any better or worse than other episodes in Season 7.  I'm guessing she did experiment with some fly-in transitional shots, unless they were specified in the script.  Maybe her suggestions resulted in a time crunch since the CGI was even more fake than usual.  Or it could just be the lower budget of Season 7 (I'm assuming it was lower budget).

Edited by Camera One
KingOfHearts

KingOfHearts

I'm sure there was plenty of handholding and Lana didn't get as much control as she claimed. No offense against her, but it was her first time directing (correct if I'm wrong) and show had been running several years. They humored some of her choices but ultimately the status quo was already established. I didn't notice anything particularly different about her episode. I give more props to Rebecca Mader for selling a hasty redemption episode as well as she did.

Guest

Guest

17 hours ago, KAOS Agent said:

Someone upthread mentioned that there was a 30 minute feature for one of the Supernatural cast's directorial debut. How is it even possible to get that much interesting footage for a job that is not all that involved? I assume that regular directors of the show have a few more responsibilities (though still not as much as people might think), but generally actors are given the job as an ego stroke and they don't do much. The shows are well run machines by the time this is given to the actor. Kevin Smith discussed on his podcast how ridiculously easy it was to direct an episode of TV vs the movies he usually does. He didn't have to do any editing, setting up effects, set layout, scheduling, etc. All that stuff that he has to deal with in a movie was easily managed by others already on TV. He said that they could pretty much give anyone the job and it wouldn't have turned out too horribly differently.

I watched the 30 minutes on Supernatural directorial debut just to see.  15-20 minutes would have been enough but it actually underlines how much of an ego stroke this is for Lana and that they seemed to be humoring her.  Jensen Ackles debut feature read as way more humble and understated.  I'd almost describe it as that they gave him the title of director but that the crew was basically mentoring him on how to direct and  he was learning what the work of director was.  One of the shows main producer/directors was standing next to Jensen in almost every shot giving coaching.

48 minutes ago, Camera One said:

I didn't find the direction in the episode any better or worse than other episodes in Season 7.  I'm guessing she did experiment with some fly-in transitional shots, unless they were specified in the script.  Maybe her suggestions resulted in a time crunch since the CGI was even more fake than usual.  Or it could just be the lower budget of Season 7 (I'm assuming it was lower budget).

It was much worse, IMO.  There were a lot of shots that screamed look at me I'm directing that took me out of the episode.  That is a big no no.  Other episodes didn't do that.

KingOfHearts

KingOfHearts

(edited)
19 hours ago, ParadoxLost said:

It was much worse, IMO.  There were a lot of shots that screamed look at me I'm directing that took me out of the episode.  That is a big no no.  Other episodes didn't do that.

Still have to laugh at the iced gingermen coming straight out of the oven. I didn't really care for the gingerbread house design or the camera shots of it. It was actually kind of bland compared to S1's, but I know there was less of a budget.

Edited by KingOfHearts
Guest

Guest

6 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

It's like she was playing dress-up.

I would also like to point out the flannel,  She was definitely playing dress up here.

What I don't get is how she managed to hit all the beats on filming/editing and wardrobe to perfectly sum up the pretentious beatnik arthouse director trope without it being satire or ironic.

Viewers recognize it.  How does an actor not?  If they ever encountered it in their career, didn't they find a corner to snicker in?

KingOfHearts

KingOfHearts

18 minutes ago, ParadoxLost said:

 

Viewers recognize it.  How does an actor not?  If they ever encountered it in their career, didn't they find a corner to snicker in?

It just tells me no one took it seriously and everyone already knew what they were supposed to do. They just humored her requests because of A&E. Do the other directors make calls on set design or similar creative decisions? Don't they have far less control on TV shows than movies or plays?

  • Love 3
Guest

Guest

1 minute ago, KingOfHearts said:

It just tells me no one took it seriously and everyone already knew what they were supposed to do. They just humored her requests because of A&E. Do the other directors make calls on set design or similar creative decisions? Don't they have far less control on TV shows than movies or plays?

I actually meant how does Lana not recognize that she was embodying a parody.  Its bizarre.

KAOS Agent

KAOS Agent

3 hours ago, ParadoxLost said:

I actually meant how does Lana not recognize that she was embodying a parody.

I thought she did recognize it and was poking fun at herself. However, she comes off as being super serious about how she's a real director so it's hard to tell if she really does get it. 

Camera One

Camera One

(edited)

I didn't see any self-awareness there.  Even though everything would have been pretty much running like clockwork, I think it was still legitimate that she would still feel a sense of accomplishment.  There were some guest stars and child actors, so I can see her giving some suggestions on line delivery.  She would get to make decisions, such as selecting takes and when she feels they could move on from a scene.  When filming, there are so many little things that are unwritten on the script, so there would be some decisions there as well.  Knowing she was going to direct this one, it's possible A&E also arranged some sessions with the CGI and set designers so she could have some input.  The featurette would have been better if it were just Lana Parilla explaining some of the highlights of directing the episode rather than A&E and her BFF's rave reviews.

Edited by Camera One
  • Love 1
Rumsy4

Rumsy4

45 minutes ago, Camera One said:

The featurette would have been better if it were just Lana Parilla explaining some of the highlights of directing the episode rather than A&E and her BFF's rave reviews.

I think this is what pushed it into the slightly farcical territory. Their praise seemed over the top. This was a good opportunity for Lana to get into directing, but this was just the first step.  

  • Love 2
tennisgurl

tennisgurl

Normally, I think actors actually do a good job when they get a chance to direct an episode of their show, especially if its a show they've been on for awhile. They usually know the show, characters, and their co-stars really well by then, and they can come at it from more of an acting perspective, and can show some innovation. Really, its a nice way for an actor who is interested in directing to get some experience with people with real experience helping them out. And its usually a well oiled machine by the time actors starts directing (unless they're already directors) so its kind of hard to screw it up. Lana did fine and all, even if the episode had a few too many "notice my directing!" moments, but A&E making it seem like she is the next Kubrick after one meh episode is pretty hilarious. 

  • Love 5
Guest

Guest

9 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

Lana did fine and all, even if the episode had a few too many "notice my directing!" moments, but A&E making it seem like she is the next Kubrick after one meh episode is pretty hilarious. 

I still think that she didn't do fine because of the "notice my directing" moments.  But she is still only the second worse director in the history of the show.  The director who managed to take that title is still whoever it was responsible for putting a nearly  frozen Emma huddled  in a corner and then didn't allow Snow to look at her to avoid having to acknowledge the situation.

Shanna Marie

Shanna Marie

Yes, those things that you have to look hard to notice are exactly the problem with this series, and not the wonky morality, inconsistent characterization, nonexistent worldbuilding and retconpalooza.

I ought to write a spoof article like this, but for the more serious problems, like Regina never actually saying she was wrong to go after Snow the way she did or that she was done trying to destroy Snow before Snow started happily hanging around with her.

  • Love 3
daxx

daxx

Honestly, this is really nit picky considering the huge actual plot holes the show has. Though these do indicate a serious lack of quality control in the production side. The money, hair and wardrobe inconsistencies are just laziness. They should have someone taking Polaroids to ensure consistency in hair, makeup, set design, and wardrobe.

  • Love 1
Camera One

Camera One

(edited)

Of course their example of "dark but not bleak" is Regina killing her father but naming her son Henry which shows she might be beginning to atone as she was coming from a place of pain and emptiness.   Their POV is really clear as day.  She feels bad about killing her father --- who cares about all her other victims.  It's no surprise this reflected on their conception of the Underworld and what it took for people to get to a "better place".

I was only able to listen to 2 minutes of the podcast.  Maybe I will punish myself further on a different day, LOL.

Edited by Camera One
  • Love 6
companionenvy

companionenvy

5 hours ago, RolloTomasi said:

Personally I think naming my child after my murder victim is more terrifying than sympathetic but what do I know. 

Is that better or worse than

a) Naming kid number three after kid number one, whom you sold into slavery

or

b) Naming kid number two after the adult who seduced kid number one when she was a homeless teen, and then got her sent to prison?

Man, this show is messed up. 

  • Love 9
profdanglais

profdanglais

5 hours ago, companionenvy said:

Is that better or worse than

a) Naming kid number three after kid number one, whom you sold into slavery

or

b) Naming kid number two after the adult who seduced kid number one when she was a homeless teen, and then got her sent to prison?

Man, this show is messed up. 

These things are worse. I can understand Regina's motives in naming her son after her dad, even though she killed her dad, but naming your son after the guy who knocked up your teenage daughter then left her to give birth in jail is just so egregiously horrible. Especially after repeated efforts to get her back together with him. 

The whole Neal storyline just makes me angry now. I wasn't so affected by it when the show was on, but I was a pretty casual viewer then. If you actually give the situation some thought it is just all kinds of messed up. 

  • Love 3
tennisgurl

tennisgurl

8 hours ago, companionenvy said:

Man, this show is messed up. 

Now that I think about it, thats something else that Hook and Emma have in common. Not only were they both cruelly ditched by people they thought loved them at a young age, scaring them for life, but they were also left with an epic kick in the teeth. "Hey kid, guess what? Not only were you just abandoned by your loved one, but they also left you to rot in jail/slavery for years of your life because they're a selfish dick! Suck to be you!" 

  • Love 5
Souris

Souris

(edited)

There's an auction with a TON of props and costumes from OUAT coming up in December. You can bid on Hook's iconic pirate ensemble, his hook, Excalibur, the chipped cup, the Dark Swan oufit, dwarf pickaxes, Elsa's gown, Jefferson's hat, the Author's pen (so you can write your own happy ending!), more swords and daggers than you can shake a stick at, etc., etc., etc. There are more than 300 pages in the catalog!

I imagine some of those items are going to have hefty bids. I'd like to have the Emma/Killian Excalibur, but no way I can afford what that's gonna go for! Hook's rum flask would also be cool.

Edited by Souris
  • Love 3
Camera One

Camera One

(edited)

We should all buy one of the hoods of the Coven but I think only Alice's hood is available.  Maybe Jacinda's jacket should start at $1 instead of $100.  Can you imagine owning that horrible "Her Handsome Hero" book?

I wish all these props and costumes would be used for a "Once Upon a Time" museum.  It would be cool to see them in real life.

I would love to see the Season 1 binders they are putting up on auction.  I wonder why none of the other season binders are available, LOL.

Edited by Camera One
Camera One

Camera One

(edited)

That is a really cool catalogue.  I wish I had time to read it before it's taken down.  If anyone has a million dollars or so, and an empty wing in your castle, you can buy all that stuff and charge us admission to visit, LOL.

Too bad the show isn't popular enough for Disneyland to set up a "Once Upon a Time" Land and all the props and costumes can go there.  

Edited by Camera One
KingOfHearts

KingOfHearts

3 hours ago, Camera One said:

That is a really cool catalogue.  I wish I had time to read it before it's taken down.  If anyone has a million dollars or so, and an empty wing in your castle, you can buy all that stuff and charge us admission to visit, LOL.

Too bad the show isn't popular enough for Disneyland to set up a "Once Upon a Time" Land and all the props and costumes can go there.  

Is that Mr. Gold's Pawn Shop facade still in Disney's Hollywood Studios?

KingOfHearts

KingOfHearts

20 hours ago, Camera One said:

I found this article that said the Streets of America where Gold's Shop sign was hung up closed in April 2016.  

That's really sad. It was in a really cool area that made the urban movie set look longer than it was, using a facade. Having Mr. Gold's shop was some good cross-promotion.

  • Love 1
KingOfHearts

KingOfHearts

(edited)

Once Upon A Time: 20 Couples The Show Wants Us To Forget

Another super relevant article from our must trusted Once Upon a Time news source.

Quote

 "Regina later became one of Once's main heroes, so the show tried making viewers forget all about the way she used and terminated Graham."

Raped. The term you're looking for is raped.

Quote

10 MOTHER GOTHEL AND HOOK

Mother Gothel and WHook were not a "couple". She raped him in a one night stand. That should not count.

Quote

4 HENRY AND IVY

Being real here - I would've loved S7 if Henry and Ivy had become a couple. Even though they were two "meh" characters, they had more chemistry than Jacinda and... literally anyone. (Except bread, of course.)

Quote

 Ivy, Drizella's alter ego, repeatedly manipulated Henry' emotions and even got him to kiss her. It was needlessly twisted, since Regina was already doing everything she could to keep Henry and Cinderella apart.

But like, Ivy actually had feelings for Henry. Yes, she was a manipulative murderous bitch, but that didn't stop Henry in the past.

Quote

1 RUMPLE AND BELLE

LOL.

Quote

Every time the Dark One seemed like he was going to sacrifice his power for love, he let Belle down. The Stockholm Syndrome featured in Beauty & the Beast was already problematic, but at least when the Beast started to change for the better, he never reverted back to his evil ways again. Rumpel kept up his abusive and deceptive tendencies even after he and Belle got married, and he hurt Belle emotionally and physically far too many times for viewers to see them as a healthy couple.

I didn't except such a big truth bomb from such a half-baked article, but this is poetic. I sort of want to hug the writer of this article now and give them a good handshake of approval.

Honestly surprised Swan Queen or Ruby Slippers didn't make the list.

Edited by KingOfHearts
  • Love 3
Camera One

Camera One

(edited)

Thanks for posting that great article! 

So was the author trying to find couples "the show wants us to forget", as the title indicates?  Or couples that didn't work and fans wanted to forget?  Or couples that fans wanted more of and never forgot?   Or dodgy aspects of couples that the show wanted viewers to forget?  All of those lists would be different but they are all mixed together in the article.  Going solely by the title, there's no way the show wanted us to forget about Rumple and Belle yet they were #1.  As usual, they needed 20 couples and they were going to get there through hell or randomness!

Edited by Camera One
  • Love 3
Writing Wrongs

Writing Wrongs

(edited)

I was in the mood for some Once stuff, so I watched the Season 4 special, Secrets of Storybrooke. I miss how excited I was to watch each week. I was thinking about how I loved the production design, so out of curiosity I emailed production designer, Michael Joy about an art & design book. He replied:

Quote

Thanks for your interest. You know while the show was going on they talked about it but Disney never did anything about it. So probably not

Quote

Unfortunately it all belongs to Disney!

 

I feel like in a lot of ways they dropped the ball on merchandising possibilities. That had a couple of crap novels and only 2 editions of the Once magazines. Some Funko Pops, music cds and other bits. Most things only covered the first couple of seasons. Disappointing. About like the lack of Charmed stuff back in the day.

Edited by Writing Wrongs
  • Love 3
KingOfHearts

KingOfHearts

52 minutes ago, Writing Wrongs said:

I feel like in a lot of ways they dropped the ball on merchandising possibilities.

Disney had the potential to do a lot of cross-marketing. You had Lana's commercial for New Disneyland, the facade for Mr. Gold's Pawn Shop, and of course the Frozen characters coming in. I don't see why Disney didn't pour more into the show for all that extra promotion. Live-action remakes are such a big deal right now that I'm surprised Disney didn't try harder to pull off something better with OUAT.

  • Love 2
KingOfHearts

KingOfHearts

(edited)

The OUAT Facebook page strangely shared a video they posted back last May, showing Rumple's death and Rumpbelle's afterlife reunion. The caption is, "The perfect ending to their story", but the beginning of the video shows Regina holding Rumple's dying body. I didn't even realize it was a Rumpbelle video until I saw the comments. It gave me Golden Queen flashbacks. Ew.

I think it's weird that  the OUAT Facebook page is still posting anything, or even just re-sharing a post they made almost a year ago.

Edited by KingOfHearts

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...