OUAT vs. Other Fairy Tales: Compare & Contrast

[CCTC]

I liked original Shrek, but thought one of the sequels was bad.  I think it was the third movie, but I do not remember for sure.  I might not have ever seen the second one.

Regarding Up, I agree the scenes with the wife and Ed Ansner's performance in general elevated the movie and after a very intelligent moving opening, much of it was pretty standard kid-fate (which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it almost seemed like the opening was from another movie).

Similarly,  I had always heard how great Toy Story 3 was, I remember sitting through the movie thinking it was mediocre and they were just repeating old jokes and running on fumes.  Then the last five minutes were incredibly well-done and moving and saved the movie.   The movie itself as a whole was not that good, but the closing segment was so good it is what people remember..  I  do think they are pushing their luck with Toy Story 4 when they already had such a touching ending and before that were showing signs of beating a dead horse.  

[Rumsy4]

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

I never felt any chemistry between Sayid and Shannon . Apparently the romance was the actor's idea if I remember right.

Huh. I never knew that. I didn't feel that couple either.

34 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

Nadia was in it, though. She was married to Sayid's brother for some reason.

She was probably fake like Jack's "son" in the Afterlife. A&E seem to have borrowed some of the worst ideas from the final season of LOST. 

I LOVE Toy Story 3. :-D 

[andromeda331]

56 minutes ago, Rumsy4 said:

 A&E seem to have borrowed some of the worst ideas from the final season of LOST. 

They really do. Its ironic when I was watching ONCE season one I thought they had learned from LOST mistakes. Obviously, in following seasons I was very, very wrong.

[Rumsy4]

Stranger Things 2 really delivered!! 

[daxx]

1 hour ago, Rumsy4 said:

Stranger Things 2 really delivered!! 

We are most of the way through but it's edge of your seat every episode! 

[Camera One]

Is anyone doing a rewatch of "Princess and the Frog" this week?  I'm sure rewatching will really maximize our appreciation of this season, which has the theme of draining the swamp (S stands for Snowing, W stands for writing quality, A stands for acting quality, M stands for Morrison, and P stands for People of Storybrooke). 

I'm so glad the Writing team is tackling "Princess & the Frog" since it is clear that they really gets at the essence of these stories we know and love.  I mean, when you watched "Princess and the Frog", who *didn't* think "leader of the resistance"?!  I think it's so interesting they were able to draw the connections between Cinderella and Waitress Tiana.   The animated Cinderella pretty much took place in a Bayou, and thematically, you can really see why Cinderella and Tiana would be friends.  I mean, both of them really knew how to use a mop.  And we already saw that Victoria has mophead stashed up in a tower.  It never ceases to amaze me what a wonderful mash-up universe these Writers create!

Unfortunately, I would have to say I didn't like the animated movie.  I liked the beginning with Tiana & New Orleans, but once it became all frog, it lost me.  Everything was forgettable, but I do remember I thought the climax was weak and not satisfying.  

Edited October 30, 2017 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

17 hours ago, Camera One said:

Unfortunately, I would have to say I didn't like the animated movie.  I liked the beginning with Tiana & New Orleans, but once it became all frog, it lost me. 

I loved The Princess and the Frog. My family's from Louisiana, so I guess I really got all the cultural references and jokes. I think I relate to Tiana more than any of the Disney princesses (except for Merida's hair). I loved that the rich blond girl wasn't portrayed as an evil bitch competing with Tiana over a guy and that the two girls were friends instead of rivals. I liked that Tiana had an ambition that had nothing to do with being a princess, and she didn't just ditch her whole life to become a princess.

But although I like the Once character named Tiana , she really isn't Tiana. They missed the point entirely if she's already a princess and doesn't become one by marriage, especially since the twist of the movie was that they made her a princess with her marriage, and then she was able to break the curse with a kiss. The whole point of Tiana was that she was a commoner who was working very hard in pursuit of her life goals. Making her a princess from birth (the way the preview looked) makes her an entirely different character. They're just namedropping with her. There is a character named Tiana, and they work in as many frog references as they can, but the character actually has absolutely nothing to do with the Tiana who was in the movie.

[tennisgurl]

I really liked the Princess and the Frog, even if it did have some flaws, especially near the 3rd act, where I think it dragged a bit until the ending, which was really exciting. I really liked the setting and the various cultural and period references, and the variation of the Princess and the Frog story was really interesting. Plus it had lots of likable characters and some good music that was clearly influenced by jazz and blues instead of the "typical" Disney music. 

Tiana is also a unique princess character, as she started off as very much not a princess, but a hard working aspiring chef and business owner, who had to learn to lighten up a little bit and have fun sometimes, while also working hard towards her goals. She had no interest in getting a man, it just kind of happened. The Once character doesn't seem to have much in common with her as of now, sadly. Plus, she hardly seems to be from a magical New Orleans and to me, Tiana and her story are very strongly rooted in time and place, so taking her from that setting is just so weird to me. We haven't gotten any indication that this version of Tiana is a workaholic, that she cooks, that shes ambitious, or anything. 

[Camera One]

I just rewatched "Princess and the Frog", and I actually liked it more this time around, now that I lowered my expectations from what I was hoping the first time around.  The parts when they were both frogs still dragged a little bit, but the juvenile talking animals didn't bother me as much.

I can now see it wasn't that much of a stretch to make Tiana the BFF of Cinderella, since the blond Charlotte seemed to be written as the stereotypical girl wishing on a star for her Prince.  There seemed to be one or two Cinderella-ish elements as well, such as the kiss must occur before midnight.  

When Tiana was learning to dance, I'm afraid I did think of Regina and how she didn't know how to dance.  A&E really gets into one's head.

Now, I'm sad that it seems like "Once" may not be doing a very faithful adaptation of the character and the story.  Tiana in the movie would never be late for work like the "Once" version.  They said they were using the movie as a launching off point, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Edited October 31, 2017 by Camera One

[Writing Wrongs]

On 10/22/2017 at 5:32 PM, KingOfHearts said:

Emerald City gets one, but OUATIW doesn't? What world are we living in?

I just saw that the show The Whispers is coming out on dvd. You would think a Disney show would have some backing to be put out.

[KingOfHearts]

I'm waiting for S8 where Regina falls into depression, finds a Daniel-lookalike, then moves to West Covina, California to be with him. 

[Camera One]

I just watched "Shrek 2" while I was catching up on work.  There were some nice allusions/mash-ups and funny moments.  Overall, I can't say I would watch it again but it was a decent diversion.  I couldn't get myself to rewatch the first one, but I'm thinking I liked this movie more.

I borrowed "Shrek 3" too so I'll watch it eventually.

[Rumsy4]

I can't remember if I fully watched the Shrek sequels. I remember one of the DVDs I got from the library was damaged (yeah--it was a long time ago). lol

I can't believe The Good Place already had its mid-season finale!! Unsure when it'll be back. Now the next thing to look forward to is Westworld S2. I think that's coming out in December. I should rewatch S1 in the meantime.

Edited November 5, 2017 by Rumsy4

[KingOfHearts]

I watched the second season of Stranger Things. It wasn't as good as the first season, imo. It had some pacing issues.

Spoiler

In that scene where Eleven finally returns to the group, you know A&E would skip the whole reunion. We wouldn't get Mike's raw emotion or all the confrontation. We'd skip to a scene with Eleven walking down the halls of the lab killing demadogs. 

Edited November 5, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[MadyGirl1987]

Saw Thor:Ragnarok and there is a scene 

Spoiler

Where both Thor and Loki get knocked out of the Rainbow Bridge by Hela going back to Asgard. Thor lands in Sakkar. Later, he finds Loki, who was knocked out of the portal before Thor, in Sakkar. Loki says he’s been there two weeks.

The reason they give is time moves differently there. Ha! I couldn’t help but think of all the Wibbly-Wobbly, timely-wimey nonsense with characters aging on OUAT.

[Rumsy4]

The Good Place spoilers. 

If anyone's watching the Show, the plot thread of Janet's breakdown over Tahani and Jason's relationship reminded me of ONCE, and the various curses and cursed relationships, especially David being "married" to Kathryn in their Cursed state. If The Good Place was structured like OUAT, the fact that Janet was married to Jason in one of the iterations would have never been brought up. Instead, they not only brought it up, but dealt with it in an organic manner, and it is still not fully resolved. They actually take time to deal with relationship and other issues, even if it is a lighter Show than OUAT. 

Edited November 8, 2017 by Rumsy4

[KingOfHearts]

=

Quote

The reason they give is time moves differently there. Ha! I couldn’t help but think of all the Wibbly-Wobbly, timely-wimey nonsense with characters aging on OUAT.

At least that was for only two weeks and wasn't completely necessary in order to understand what was going on.

I enjoyed Thor 3 and appreciated the Guardians of the Galaxy-esque tone. The whole thing was ridiculous cover-to-cover, and it totally owned it.

[Camera One]

I thought this video "Cinderella: Stop Blaming the Victim" was interesting.  I don't necessarily agree with everything in it, but I think it does raise some good points about how Cinderella wasn't as weak and passive as a lot of people label her as.  In some ways, I think A&E saw her that way, and that's why they were never interested in exploring the character or keeping her on after the one-off in Season 1.  In an attempt to make Cinderella "empowered" and kickass, they ignored or eliminated a lot of the characteristics which made her internally strong, like her ability to remain relatively calm under pressure without flying off the handle like Jacinda.

[Souris]

2 hours ago, Camera One said:

I thought this video "Cinderella: Stop Blaming the Victim" was interesting.  I don't necessarily agree with everything in it, but I think it does raise some good points about how Cinderella wasn't as weak and passive as a lot of people label her as.  In some ways, I think A&E saw her that way, and that's why they were never interested in exploring the character or keeping her on after the one-off in Season 1.  In an attempt to make Cinderella "empowered" and kickass, they ignored or eliminated a lot of the characteristics which made her internally strong, like her ability to remain relatively calm under pressure without flying off the handle like Jacinda.

I especially appreciated the 2015 Cinderella movie. She was treated terribly by her stepmother and stepsisters but was able to keep to what her mother taught her, "Have courage and be kind." She was strong in the face of adversity and didn't let it warp her. She forgave her stepmother in the end but at the same time stood up for herself and wasn't going to have anything more to do with her (looking at you, Snow). She was good but not weak. I loved that movie. I thought it struck just the right tone. It showed us why the stepmother was the way she was, but it didn't excuse her behavior or woobify her because of it. And it even gave some time to the prince and his relationship with his father.

[Rumsy4]

The early reviews for the new Murder on the Orient Express adaptation are not very good, which I pretty much suspected from the moment I saw Branagh's mustaches the promo that was released several months ago. Still, it is one of my favorite Christies, and I will see the new movie. Not sure if I'll watch it in the theater, or wait for it come on Amazon instant.

I liked the Suchet version, even though it was much darker than the book. I remember liking the 70s version with Sean Connery et al, though Albert Finney made for an odd Poirot.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Rumsy4

[Camera One]

2 hours ago, Rumsy4 said:

The early reviews for the new Murder on the Orient Express adaptation are not very good, which I pretty much suspected from the moment I saw Branagh's mustaches the promo that was released several months ago. Still, it is one of my favorite Christies, and I will see the new movie.

I was disappointed in the reviews too, and my first reaction to the mustache was also negative.  On the bright side, most of the reviews I've read weren't horrible, just that the movie was a bit by-the-numbers and lacking in emotion and humor, too focused on the visuals and confusing for people not familiar with the story.  I also read mostly decent things about Branagh's performance.  I'm guessing it's a case where a fan of the books like us would still find it interesting, just to see how they adapt it.  At least it's got to be better than "Once"'s adaptation of "The Count of Monte Cristo", right?  :D

I just heard that Amazon is making a TV series based on "Lord of the Rings" that takes place before "The Fellowship of the Ring".  Why didn't they snag A&E as the headwriters/showrunners?  I would love to see their take on Sauron as a misunderstood loner shunned by society.  

Edited November 13, 2017 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

1 minute ago, Camera One said:

At least it's got to be better than "Once"'s adaptation of "The Count of Monte Cristo", right?  :D

I just watched the relatively recent (early 2000s) version of that, and while they changed things a lot (like a happy ending), it really highlighted just how badly Once messed that story up. The whole point was that he became the Count to infiltrate their social circles and learn and exploit their weaknesses without them knowing that it was his long game revenge scheme. Having him just walking into a ball and announcing "I'm the Count of Monte Cristo and I'm here to get my revenge" suggests that they didn't even read the TV Guide blurb of a movie version of the story.

[Camera One]

I've been reading some reaction to the news that Amazon is doing a "Lord of the Rings" series, and I've read quite a few comments about how "The Hobbit" movies weren't as good as the "Lord of the Rings" movies.

Peter Jackson is a talented director/writer, but it's interesting that even he failed to make lightning strike twice.  "The Hobbit", like Season 7 of this show, feels like a bland and unsuccessful redux of the original "Lord of the Rings" trilogy (and Season 1, in the case of "Once").  Peter Jackson is way more talented than A&E, but did he fall into some of the same pitfalls?  Part of it was his decision to stretch out a much shorter story (in "The Hobbit") to three movies.   Is it because he underestimated how much his original success was due to Tolkien's material?  "The Lord of the Rings" had a lot more significant character development and growth than "The Hobbit", which felt more like one sequence of special effects powered action scene after another.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Camera One

[daxx]

One movie for the hobbit would have made a great movie.

[ParadoxLost]

14 minutes ago, Camera One said:

I've been reading some reaction to the news that Amazon is doing a "Lord of the Rings" series, and I've read quite a few comments about how "The Hobbit" movies weren't as good as the "Lord of the Rings" movies.

Peter Jackson is a talented director/writer, but it's interesting that even he failed to make lightning strike twice.  "The Hobbit", like Season 7 of this show, feels like a bland and unsuccessful redux of the original "Lord of the Rings" trilogy (and Season 1, in the case of "Once").  Peter Jackson is way more talented than A&E, but did he fall into some of the same pitfalls?  Part of it was his decision to stretch out a much shorter story (in "The Hobbit") to three movies.   Is it because he underestimated how much his original success was due to Tolkien's material?  "The Lord of the Rings" had a lot more significant character development and growth than "The Hobbit", which felt more like one sequence of special effects powered action scene after another.

I never saw the Hobbit, so I can't comment on those movies.  But I don't remember any character development in The Lord of the Rings.  All I remember was that the just walked all the time.  Walking, walking, and more walking.  Like how everyone in Storybrooke just stands around on group adventures except the person with the centric that episode.  And nothing happens.

In retrospect, watching all the LoTR movies back to back on a plane ride to China was probably a mistake. 

 

On ‎11‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 0:00 PM, Rumsy4 said:

The Good Place spoilers. 

If anyone's watching the Show, the plot thread of Janet's breakdown over Tahani and Jason's relationship reminded me of ONCE, and the various curses and cursed relationships, especially David being "married" to Kathryn in their Cursed state. If The Good Place was structured like OUAT, the fact that Janet was married to Jason in one of the iterations would have never been brought up. Instead, they not only brought it up, but dealt with it in an organic manner, and it is still not fully resolved. They actually take time to deal with relationship and other issues, even if it is a lighter Show than OUAT. 

The Good Place is a really good example of if the writing room and acting is strong enough, the fanbase will pretty much go along with anything and like it.

[Rumsy4]

34 minutes ago, daxx said:

One movie for the hobbit would have made a great movie.

Yeah. Three Hobbit movies diluted the LOtR trilogy movies in retrospect, bargain Legolas including. It's like Peter Jackson made a poor quality fanfic of the first trilogy.

27 minutes ago, ParadoxLost said:

The Good Place is a really good example of if the writing room and acting is strong enough, the fanbase will pretty much go along with anything and like it.

Pretty much!!

Edited November 14, 2017 by Rumsy4

[tennisgurl]

4 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

I just watched the relatively recent (early 2000s) version of that, and while they changed things a lot (like a happy ending), it really highlighted just how badly Once messed that story up. The whole point was that he became the Count to infiltrate their social circles and learn and exploit their weaknesses without them knowing that it was his long game revenge scheme. Having him just walking into a ball and announcing "I'm the Count of Monte Cristo and I'm here to get my revenge" suggests that they didn't even read the TV Guide blurb of a movie version of the story.

I first heard the story of the Count of Monte Cristo when I was a kid watching this kids PBS show called Wishbone, about a cute pet dog who imagined himself into classic stories, while also helping his human family with kid problems. That was a better adaptation then the one Once did! And the part of the Count was played by a freaking terrier! At least I believed that the writers has actually read the book! 

[Trini]

Considering that Wishbone had to condense stories down to 20 minutes and make them appropriate for elementary-aged children, it's adaptations were really good!

[tennisgurl]

It really did @Trini didn't it? They certainly changed some things to make the stories more kid friendly (and to fit a TV budget and a 20 minute run time) but they clearly cared about the stories they were telling and tried to get the essence down, even if they didn't get all the details. 

[CCTC]

I liked the LOTR trilogy, but they kind of did tarnish its legacy with the painful Hobbit trilogy.  If you need to pad a movie by creating a Elf-Dwarf-Elf love triangle, it probably should not be more than one movie.   In full disclosure, when I read the books I liked the trilogy a lot more than the Hobbit, so I might have had some bias in that respect. 

The Hobbit is not a bad book, but it is more of a light hearted adventure less 300 hundred pages that did not require three movies.   It had a different tone than the later trilogy and instead the Hobbit movies came off as imitation LOTR  (and again seemed in some ways like bad LOTR fanfiction).

Edited November 14, 2017 by CCTC

[jhlipton]

22 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

It really did @Trini didn't it? They certainly changed some things to make the stories more kid friendly (and to fit a TV budget and a 20 minute run time) but they clearly cared about the stories they were telling and tried to get the essence down, even if they didn't get all the details. 

I loved the old Classics Illustrated comic books back in  the day, which did much the same thing.  Maybe the writers on Wishbone read them when they were kids, too.

[Spartan Girl]

Dude, I LOVED Wishbone! That show was my favorite as a kid; it inspired me to read the actual books -- pretty ambitious for a 10-year-old, but I read the Wishnone versions too, heh. And yeah, they did a WAY better job with those retellings than OUAT.

[Camera One]

On 10/27/2017 at 8:10 AM, Shanna Marie said:

I thought the first two were fun, but not quite as clever as the makers seemed to think they were. The third one was rather awful -- kind of depressing, really. I didn't see it at the theater, just on HBO. I ended up with it on in a hotel room because it was the best background noise option I found, and I'd only seen it once, so it was moderately fresh. But it is pretty awful. It only became amusing once I started spotting all the Once parallels.

Quote

I caught part of the third Shrek movie while I was in a hotel last week, and I had to look up the release date (it was a year before Once launched) because there were so many elements that seemed strikingly familiar. The villain was Rumpelstiltskin, and they called him Rumple.

I think that was the fourth one, since it had Rumplestiltskin.  I haven't seen that one yet.  I actually didn't even know there was a fourth one until just now when I googled it, since I watched the third one today, and Rumple had a very minor role in it.

Spoilers below for Shrek 3 if you haven't seen it.

In Shrek 3, the villain is Prince Charming, who convinces the other villains that they were unfairly treated, and they attack the kingdom and he tries to take the Crown. 

I thought Shrek 3 was a bit better than Shrek 2, though I can't say I'll ever want to watch it again.  I did like seeing the fairy tale princesses and some of the other minor cameos (eg. Three Blind Mice in passing).  It didn't make much sense to me why Captain Hook, etc. in the tavern would suddenly be against Prince Charming when he was in and out of the tavern several times in Shrek 2 with no problem.  It seems like a retcon.  Plus some "villains" are friends with the heroes, like the Wolf in Little Red Riding Hood and one of the Ugly Stepsisters.  So it seemed kind of arbitrary who was a villain and who wasn't.  Interesting, the Princess who betrays the other princesses was Rapunzel.  The movie also featured Arthur... I thought one of the character arcs was Shrek would be willing to become King, but then he just handed the Crown to Arthur, so that was weird.  I did think they do a decent job of giving Shrek something to work through in each movie (in this one, dealing with impending fatherhood).  

Now that I've watched two more Shrek movies (this third one came out in 2007), where there are a ton of fairy tale mash-ups and call-outs, I'm thinking that A&E aren't really as original as they claim to be.  They're just doing it in a more "serious" way.  

I'm going to try to find the fourth one to watch.

Edited November 20, 2017 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

I think that was the fourth one, since it had Rumplestiltskin.  I haven't seen that one yet.  I actually didn't even know there was a fourth one until just now when I googled it, since I watched the third one today, and Rumple had a very minor role in it.

Oh, right! I'd completely blanked on the third movie with Arthur, and since I was in a hotel, I didn't have the onscreen guide to tell me what I was watching.

I liked the second one best, as I recall. The third was iffy, and I loathed the fourth.

[Camera One]

I watched "Ratatouille" tonight for the first time.  I thought the movie was decent... not really a favorite, but it was fine.  I cringed a little at the inevitable fights between the human and the rat, and some of the chase sequences especially in the first half hour were really tiresome.

Anyway, I was wondering if they plan to include "Ratatouille" in Season 7.  Maybe Sabine enlists the help of rats for their food truck business, LOL.  Or one of the villains of Season 7 could be a critic, since they're pure evil.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

11 hours ago, Camera One said:

Anyway, I was wondering if they plan to include "Ratatouille" in Season 7. 

The catering boss who filled in while Roni headed to San Francisco is named Remy, so maybe that's their way of doing it. Maybe he's a rat in Enchanted Forest 2.0 and the curse made him human.

[Camera One]

There's the news item where a mother is asking her school to remove "Sleeping Beauty" from the library because it features non-consensual kissing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/sexist-sleeping-beauty-fairy-tales-may-need-updating-new-generation/

She would be shocked at "Once Upon a Non-consensual Relationships".

Edited November 25, 2017 by Camera One

[Spartan Girl]

Watching Pan on TV, and while the backstory of Peter being the child of a fairy Prince and a human had potential, it's generally a poor prequel to Peter Pan. I knew it was going to be a shitshow when I first heard about Tiger Lily's whitewashing, but Hugh Jackman's Blackbeard breaking out into "Smells Like Teen Spirit" confirmed it.

Joe Wright had the chance to The Little Mermaid and he passed it up for THIS?!

[ParadoxLost]

On ‎11‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 8:55 PM, Camera One said:

There's the news item where a mother is asking her school to remove "Sleeping Beauty" from the library because it features non-consensual kissing.

What?  She didn't go after Snow White with its non-consensual kissing of corpses.

[Camera One]

Danger danger danger.  Adam just watched "A Muppet Christmas Carol".  We'll be seeing Tiny Tim and how he ruined Scrooge's life soon.

[InsertWordHere]

Reading a discussion on another forum about a couple stealing the thunder of another couple getting married by interrupting their vows and asking if they could also get married has brought back memories of the criticism of Emma and Hook's reunion after Robin's funeral.  Both couples on the other show had also just attended a funeral. While I don't love how it was done, I would still take the shared post-funeral wedding of two couples over the immediate separation after the graveside reunion or the rush job given to Hook and Emma's wedding at the end of the musical and another immediate separation accompanied by memory loss. 

Ah, the grass is always greener on the other side. 

If anyone's interested, the couples were 

Spoiler

Barry and Iris and Oliver and Felicity during the four show DCTV crossover and neither couple even got married on their own show. However, it looks like both couples will get some sort of celebration in honor of their nuptials, and not just a musical number followed by a curse, although on Flash, the musical number could be possible too. 

[oncebluethrone]

I don't think the CS wedding was rushed and I've never minded their separations, but it was weird how Emma didn't insist on Killian coming with her and Regina to find Henry in New York. On the subject of what happened during the DCTV crossover, I think it's more bothersome that 

Spoiler

A Jewish superhero (Martin Stein) was killed by Nazis when him dying in order for his character to be written off (since his actor wanted to leave) was unnecessary. I'm a fan of both couples that got married and I don't think anyone was stealing anyone's thunder, but I think it would have worked better if they had been able to get married on their own shows. I've only seen evidence for Oliver and Felicity's wedding celebration, but I highly doubt there won't eventually be one for Barry and Iris.

[tennisgurl]

I was just over on those forums! The whole double wedding thing wasn't my ideal for either couple, but at least they waited until AFTER the big disaster to get married, and didn't do it as an evil fairy was about to kill them. Personally, I think people are getting a bit worked up over what is not that big of a deal, and its spoiling all the fun of a perfectly good cross over, but its subjective I guess, and who am I to say people are getting too invested in a ship. I would have liked more build up, but I was just happy that we actually get to see the couples BE couples after the wedding, unlike poor CS, where we didn't even get to see them call each other husband or wife I dont think. 

[jhlipton]

14 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

Personally, I think people are getting a bit worked up over what is not that big of a deal, and its spoiling all the fun of a perfectly good cross over

I put up my own thoughts on that forum. Basically, I think it was 2 things:

1. It was done after the crisis was over, so the "But Nazis!" portion was done

2. It was the last scene.  I think if they had ended with the Snart/Rory scene, for example, there wouldn't be as much fuss.

Edited November 30, 2017 by jhlipton

[ParadoxLost]

On ‎11‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 8:57 PM, tennisgurl said:

I was just over on those forums! The whole double wedding thing wasn't my ideal for either couple, but at least they waited until AFTER the big disaster to get married, and didn't do it as an evil fairy was about to kill them. Personally, I think people are getting a bit worked up over what is not that big of a deal, and its spoiling all the fun of a perfectly good cross over, but its subjective I guess, and who am I to say people are getting too invested in a ship. I would have liked more build up, but I was just happy that we actually get to see the couples BE couples after the wedding, unlike poor CS, where we didn't even get to see them call each other husband or wife I dont think. 

I was actually fine with it.  Its not like both couples haven't had the big aborted ceremony already.  It made more sense to do a little intimate thing.  I actually got a little choked up at Diggle marrying them both. But then I've always liked how Oliver and Barry and Felicity get along.  And it was kind of a nice intimate nod that these are the core of the franchise at the end of a big melee. The originals of Arrow and the first hero they spun off.  But then again, while I like the crossovers I really not a huge fan of every show having to have their own team with nearly all of them having powers.

And I'm going to say it...  The WestAllen and Olicity wedding ceremony was better than the CaptainSwan wedding ceremony.  The CaptainSwan ceremony had a back drop of bad CGI and clunky writing that didn't sound like people talk and was bordering on recapping plot in the guise of this is why I love you vows.  The Arrowverse wedding seemed like real people in a real setting with real history were getting married.

[Camera One]

10 minutes ago, ParadoxLost said:

And I'm going to say it...  The WestAllen and Olicity wedding ceremony was better than the CaptainSwan wedding ceremony.  The CaptainSwan ceremony had a back drop of bad CGI and clunky writing that didn't sound like people talk and was bordering on recapping plot in the guise of this is why I love you vows.  

As much as the wedding song was fun to watch, I don't think I've ever seen a wedding on a show which was so ludicrous in terms of its context.  A bunch of people singing and dancing about a happy beginning when they knew for a fact that 5 minutes later, yet another Curse would be enacted and they could all die.  It made the characters seem like a bunch of idiots!  

Edited December 1, 2017 by Camera One

[Souris]

17 hours ago, Camera One said:

 It made the characters seem like a bunch of idiots!  

So it was perfectly fitting for the show.

[KingOfHearts]

18 hours ago, Camera One said:

As much as the wedding song was fun to watch, I don't think I've ever seen a wedding on a show which was so ludicrous in terms of its context.  A bunch of people singing and dancing about a happy beginning when they knew for a fact that 5 minutes later, yet another Curse would be enacted and they could all die.  It made the characters seem like a bunch of idiots!  

I believe that was the writers' (failed) attempt at fixing the problem of, "if these people are constantly dealing with crisis after crisis, how are they not stressed out all the time"? Usually shows deal with this problem with timeskips or "slice of life" moments to prove they do live normally between the chaos. Star Trek's characters were always putting their lives on the line, but it was part of the duty that came with the job. Lost's characters were also wondering when the madness would end, but the writers there tied everything together. The Others, Widmore's operatives, and the MiB were all connected into one cohesive storyline. On OUAT, nearly every arc since 3A has been totally random and could be put into a vacuum:

3A - It's revealed Greg and Tamara work for Peter Pan and Henry is what they need, without any setup.
3B - Zelena comes out of nowhere with a convuluted backstory to wedge her into the show's mythology.
4A - Hook just happens to touch Elsa's urn, which just so happens to fall through the time portal. Rumple just so happens to find the Sorcerer's Hat. Emma just so happens to run into Marian in the past.
4B - It's revealed Cruella and Ursula have been living in LWM this whole time, Regina and Rumple know them, and they're besties with Maleficent. (Even though they've never been mentioned before.) We do get a story on the Author, however.
5A - Emma and Hook become Dark Ones for a while. Never mentioned again. However, we do get that delicious Dark One origin story.
5B - Hook goes to Underworld. It's revealed Zelena and Hades dated briefly, though that was never setup before.
6A - The never-mentioned-before-the-S5-finale Land of Untold Stories descends upon Storybrooke. Aladdin is revealed to be a Savior, but that turns out to be meaningless and nothing to do with anything.
6B - Finally, we get the Black Fairy, who has been part of the show since 1x03. Creator of the Dark Curse. Mother of the Dark One. The dark page in the Blue Fairy's history. She should bring it all together right? Well, her only goal was to bring all the children to LWM. Storybrooke was not needed. They didn't even need to be cursed. Her being Rumple's mom added nothing. The Blue Fairy didn't even remember the circumstances of the banishment she was present for. The Final Battle was namedropped by Rumple in the very first episode, but it really had nothing to do with the show's events. What was so final about it? Who decides how long the "book" is? 

At least in the final season of Lost, it was explained why the Survivors first came to the Island. Everybody was working toward an end goal whether they knew it or not. The Final Battle on OUAT, though, was just Rumple deciding not to let Emma die. Like, okay? Regina casting the curse, which started this whole thing, was a non-element in that? Was the show all this time secretly just about Rumple's redemption and Emma's willingness to die? I get Emma had a role as the Savior, but that didn't have anything to do with fighting Gideon until S6. Her enemy was meant to be Regina or Rumple. Wouldn't it have more sense for her to fight Clone Queen, Rumple, or even the Black Fairy? Oh, that's right - "only light can snuff out light". Silly me.

Edited December 2, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

On 10/27/2017 at 7:40 AM, Shanna Marie said:

I caught part of the third Shrek movie while I was in a hotel last week, and I had to look up the release date (it was a year before Once launched) because there were so many elements that seemed strikingly familiar. The villain was Rumpelstiltskin, and they called him Rumple. There was an alternate reality created by a wish. In that alternate reality, the suave, dashing character was fat, and there were a lot of jokes about him being fat and useless. The True Love's Kiss for breaking the spell didn't work when one of the people involved didn't remember the other and wasn't in love, and it took an act of sacrifice to create that love so the kiss would work (really, that season one episode seemed frighteningly close to this). I'm sure there were more. This was just what I noticed during the last half hour or so while using the TV as background noise for getting ready for bed and doing some knitting.

I just watched this fourth Shrek movie last night.  I didn't find it that bad.  It was clear that by the fourth movie, they were running out of ideas for how to give Shrek further development or growth, so they regressed him. 

Still, most of the movie was mildly engaging to me... basically it was a Wish Realm, but I found it better done than the "Once" version.  They actually did show the various characters in different situations because Shrek was never born.  They showed Shrek and Fiona falling in love again, Shrek and Donkey working together again, etc., but in a different way.  All the Alt scenarios "Once" did, including "There's No Place Like Home" and "Operation Mongoose", were a repetitious replay of Bandit Snow stuff (the latter with Regina in the role).

But I definitely agree with you about the similarities between this movie and "Once".  I had watched "Shrek" years ago and wasn't impressed but now that I've watched all 4 movies, I think much less of A&E's originality and creativity. 

These movies did fairy-tale mash-ups and clever references before "Once" even existed.  They didn't have rights to use Disney characters, but they had similar enough characters so you knew who they were referring to.  As Shanna Marie said, the references to Rumple were eerily familiar.  They had a line near the beginning that Rumplestiltskin "comes highly recommended by King Midas".  And then, there was the kickass Princess (Fiona the Resistance Fighter was like Bandit Snow, except with WALLS).  The scene where the Wish Realm was destroyed at the end looked very similar to the end of the pilot when the Curse enveloped Snowing's castle... the disintegrating ceiling, for example.  Now, I'm wondering how many elements A&E actually copied from Shrek over the years.

Edited December 2, 2017 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

8 hours ago, Camera One said:

Now, I'm wondering how many elements A&E actually copied from Shrek over the years.

This is a rich topic we can mine for years whenever we are super-bored, but still want to dish about ONCE. lol