OUAT vs. Other Fairy Tales: Compare & Contrast

[tennisgurl]

I watched Netflix's latest fantasy series adaptation, Shadow and Bone last week, and while it had a lot of flaws, I thought it was a pretty fun watch. It had a lot of tropes that we are very familiar with here on Once, like a hard luck orphan finding out that she's the chosen one, the "I hate you but now I like you" romance arc, tension between magic users and muggles, lots of dramatic hand gestures and century spanning evil plans, endless subplots, but while the shows main plot is a pretty generic chosen one story with a love triangle on top, what made the show really work for me was the unique and complex world building that helped to make up for its flaws, to an extent anyway. 

Instead of making their fantasy world another bland standard fantasy setting that's based on a vague idea of medieval England with endless wandering through boring forests, they decided to make the main country based on 1800s Tsarist Russia, especially in naming conventions and clothing styles, which gives it a really interesting and unique feel of a fantasy world. Its also a more industrialized world, with rifles and primitive machine guns next to magic spells and prophesies, with magic and technology being major parts of the world when it comes to everything from medicine to the military, even bordering on steampunk a few times with some of the machinery that comes out of the neighboring country that is sort of the Dutch Republic by way of Victorian England. We don't get to explore a ton of the world yet, but its clear that the author of the books really put time and effort into figuring out how this world works, with class systems, government systems, multiple nations and cultures in conflict with each other, religions, mythology, and a well thought out magic system with consistent rules that magic users have to follow except in case of being a chosen one. It makes a lot of the flaws in the plotting and characterization a bit easier to handle when you have a really interesting, well thought out, and unique world to explore. Just imagine how more fun Once would have been if they had put more thought into their worlds and made them really stand out from each other, instead of refusing to explain anything about how their main kingdom (or any kingdoms) work while the cast stomps through yet another boring forest where every place they go to is almost exactly the same with few variations in clothes, culture, names, etc that aren't lifted directly from movies.

Also interesting is that, while the main Chosen One story is pretty standard fantasy Chosen One stuff, unlike Emma she actually does know what she is supposed to do as a Chosen One (getting rid of an evil darkness that tore their world in half) and consistent chosen One powers, and most interestingly, she is seen as an explicit religious figure to one of the worlds dominant religions and the state religion of her home country. She finds this to be rather hard to swallow and is uncomfortable with people starting to worship her as basically a Messiah, and her becoming a religious icon soon figures into her story and how people interact with her, its an interesting angle to take with a chosen one story. Adding a religious competent to her chosen one status allows for more world building and generally adds more drama to her status as chosen one. Its one thing to be told your going to do great things, especially in a world where magic is a well known day to day part of life, its another if your suddenly now a living angel and your religions long prophesized savior. 

[Camera One]

"Epic" is filming its pilot.  It's supposedly an "anthology", but they're describing the main cast, so are those roles continuing then?

Quote

Luna
A fairytale princess made cynical by a broken heart. She doesn’t believe in love stories, which is unfortunate because she is about to find herself caught in the most epic one of all — her own.

The Seer:
A mysterious and playful figure who can lead you down the path of true love.[2]

Rose
She is as princess-y as princesses come, and about to marry her Prince Charming. But her fairy tale gets upended when he has second thoughts, and trying to preserve her dreams opens her up to an unexpected world.

Philippe
The quintessential storybook prince, Philippe is following what he believes is his destined path to True Love when he finds himself at a surprising crossroads, leading him to question everything he held dear.

So far, at least on paper, they do seem different than the "Once" characters.  I guess Luna could be a fairy-tale version of Emma.  The Seer a love-oriented Rumple.  

I heard the hope is for this to be a mid-season show on ABC.

[Camera One]

I'm re-reading the Oz series, and in the second book, it stated that the Good Witch of the North banned others from becoming witches, but it was possible to be a Sorceress or a Wizardess.  Which makes me wonder the differences between the three.  

It also stated that people "hesitated to associate" with Mombi because they suspected her of "indulging in magical arts", and they were scared of her, treating her "shyly, yet respectfully, because of her weird powers".  Why respectful?  Do they mean they were scared not to anger her, or did they actually respect her?

Anyway, I suppose this could explain why Zelena's father was so suspicious of Zelena's powers (not that I believe the Writers of "Once" actually consulted the Oz books). 

Setting the 3B flashbacks of the "Missing Year' in Oz with the events from the second book could have been interesting.  If Zelena's army was marching on the Emerald City to claim the throne, but the heroes of "Once" helped Tip, the Scarecrow and the Tin Man to find the rightful ruler, and Zelena cast the Curse to stop that from happening.  Maybe Snowing manages to send Tip to New York City and he befriends Henry and Emma adopts him.

[KingOfHearts]

They ended up making Cruella a completely different character from 101 Dalmatians for the live-action remake? "Prequel"? (Or as Disney calls it, a "reimagining") I thought it was funny they used "Sympathy for the Devil" by the Rolling Stones at the end of the film, since that was the name of Cruella's episode on Once Upon a Time.

Slightly spoilery...
 

Spoiler

It's another one of those strange moments where I actually prefer the Once Upon a Time version. The Cruella in the film wasn't actually all that terrible and you couldn't possibly see her turning into a puppy killer. The movie doesn't even hint at that. So while I don't hate her as her own thing, she really didn't need to be "Cruella DeVil." Perhaps it would've been more interesting if 101 Dalmatians actually existed within the film's universe and she was a woman who took on the Cruella persona as part of her fashion statement/revenge plot.

 

[Camera One]

I thought the film was very stylish and was an engaging diversion, but the character wasn't that similar to the Cruella de Vil of lore.  

Spoiler

They even went out of their way to show that Cruella loved dogs and made it crystal clear that she did NOT kill the Dalmatians, even though those Dalmatians were kind of evil.  While they did do the expected sob story, I was pleasantly surprised that they didn't make the Darlings into evil psychos to justify Cruella's descent into... well, not evil.  In the end, Cruella was seen by the public as being a daring fashionista and everyone was mourning for her, so it's not like she was really seen as a villain.  At the end of the day, the movie was more of a "The Devil Wears Prada" story, and that was the part I liked the most (the stuff with Child Cruella really dragged).  It was still way better than "Maleficent".

 

Edited June 6, 2021 by Camera One

[Camera One]

Quote

I watched the first 20 minutes of the live-action "Cinderella" just now as a break from work.

I couldn't watch any more due to the cruelty towards Ella.  It wasn't deliciously evil, just despicable.  The dad was gone for half a day and she sends Ella to the attic?   

I also felt really angry at the father, for marrying Lady Tremaine and bringing her to the house, and then leaving on a trading trip.  He would have been pretty blind to not see how difficult it would be to live with the stepsisters.  He must have seen their gambling lifestyle.  Was he just dazzled by Lady Tremaine's beauty or something?  

I wonder what would have happened if Ella had been all alone when she lost her father.  That would have been an interesting "might have been" to explore.  Stuff like that would be fun if there were another fairy tale spinoff show.  

Oops, I posted the above in the wrong thread.

Anyway, I finished watching the movie tonight, and I think it picked up when the Fairy Godmother came onto the scene, and the magic and then the ball finally made the story feel like a fairy tale.

I still can't say I loved the movie, but I did strongly like the second half.  I still found it infuriating whenever Lady Tremaine was on screen, and not in a good way.  

So Lady Tremaine's first marriage was true love?  But then her true love died, and she turned all bitter and vindictive?  I'm glad they didn't give her a sob story, but that didn't explain her evil behavior at all.  She married for the sake of her girls?  In what way?  Because she thought Ella's father could sustain their extravagant lifestyle?  

I know it was contrary to the whole "Be Kind" theme, but I wouldn't have minded if Cinderella tripped the stepmother as she went down the stairs at the end.  It wasn't satisfying that she wasn't really punished.  

I find these various re-makes rather strange in their variety.  This one had a number of call-backs to the original and followed much of the plot, but it didn't use any of the musical cues.   At least the changes made in this one were mostly nice additions.  The extra scenes with Ella and the Prince were pretty good.

Whereas in the Mulan remake, a lot of the changes made the story weaker.  Such as no one seeing Mulan saving them with the avalanche, which made it utterly unconvincing why they were all behind her later on.  I thought the story could actually have benefitted from not having Mushu, but it turned into a rather sterile emotionless war movie with a much worse climax.

Then, we have the pretty much literal remakes like "Beauty and the Beast" and "Aladdin".  

[Shanna Marie]

On 6/8/2021 at 12:21 AM, Camera One said:

I find these various re-makes rather strange in their variety.  This one had a number of call-backs to the original and followed much of the plot, but it didn't use any of the musical cues.   At least the changes made in this one were mostly nice additions.  The extra scenes with Ella and the Prince were pretty good.

I love the live-action Cinderella a lot. It's my go-to "comfort food" movie, guaranteed to make me feel better. I think what I like about it is that it wasn't really a live-action remake of the Disney cartoon. It was a movie based on the same fairy tale as the cartoon, making use of some of the Disney iconography. I feel like the characters and their motivations were different, and the focus of the movie was different. The backstory's a lot more important in the live-action, with that being an actual part of the movie rather than a quick recap prologue. But I think they were able to make that work because the cartoon was a fairly faithful adaptation of the fairy tale. They added things like the singing mice, but otherwise stuck pretty close. It might have been more difficult to do this kind of adaptation of Beauty and the Beast, since the Disney cartoon made a lot of changes to the fairy tale -- changing the merchant who'd fallen on hard times to an inventor and adding a villain in Gaston. It would certainly be possible to make a new movie going back to the original fairy tale, but the Disney version has become so iconic that people would wonder where Gaston was.

Speaking of Beauty and the Beast, I recently read a novel that's a retelling from the Beast's perspective, The Beast's Heart by Leife Shallcross. It's very much based on the fairy tale rather than the Disney version (which is nice, because so many things inspired by B&B in the past 30 years have treated the Disney version like it's canon), and I also couldn't detect any traces of OUAT influence, unless it was someone who was so outraged with what they did to the story that she wrote something based on the fairy tale as a palate cleanser.

The interesting thing about the book is that it fixes the Stockholm Syndrome problem. The Beast had pretty much gone feral and had only returned to his palace and remembered having been human once not long before the merchant stumbles upon the place. The Beast saw into the man's thoughts and was intrigued by the youngest daughter, so he uses the theft of the rose as an excuse to demand the daughter be sent to him. He never expected the man to go through with it and didn't intend to carry through on his threat. He's surprised when the girl shows up, feels bad, and confesses all. He tells her he needs someone to help socialize him again and asks if she'd be willing to stay, and says she can leave at any time. She agrees to stay, in part because she feels bad for him but in part because her sisters have basically treated her like a servant since they lost their money and servants and had to fend for themselves, and she could use a vacation. It's a subtle change, but her choosing to be there without any kind of bargain or coercion, getting something out of it, and being free to leave at any time makes the relationship less creepy. Without any kind of Gaston or actual villain, it's essentially a romance that's strictly about their relationship, but I enjoyed it. It was a less stressful read without a lot of tension or conflict.

While I'm doing book reports, I also read yet another version of the Pan and Hook story, Lost Boy, by Christina Henry. It's a made-up backstory, but I don't think it meshes well with what's in the original book or what Barrie has said about the characters. It's more like OUAT, where they take the basic concepts of Pan, Hook, and Neverland and tell an entirely different story. It's from the future Hook's perspective, so in that respect it's like OUAT, with Hook being the hero and Pan being the villain. In this telling, the future Hook, Jamie, is the first Lost Boy, the first boy Pan recruits and brings to Neverland. He becomes Pan's lieutenant/best friend/right-hand man as Pan recruits more boys, but he's starting to get disillusioned as he realizes that Pan is basically a narcissistic sociopath who doesn't care about the boys at all, so Jamie's the one making sure they get fed and clothed, tending their wounds, and trying to keep them safe. Because he's acting like an adult, he's starting to grow up. He was 8 or 9 when he was recruited more than a century earlier, and at the start of the book he's about 12 physically. The more he pulls away from Pan and looks after the kids, the more he grows up. There's nowhere for a grown-up on Neverland to go but to the pirates.

It's an interesting book, though it gets a bit dark (Pan is really, really a sociopath, and maybe a bit of a sadist). There were a few things that made me wonder if this might have been in part inspired by the OUAT version. It doesn't read like someone's AU fanfic, but there are a couple of similarities that didn't come from the original book. I think I liked Alias, Hook, which I read a few years ago, better because this one involves spending a lot of time with bratty kids.

[Camera One]

I was watching the trailer to "Masters of the Universe", the Netflix series with He-Man.

Spoilers to trailer below:

It was funny because it could have been a half-season plot on "Once".

Starting with the video description.  "The Final Battle Begins", which is also the tagline in the trailer.

It seems like the premise is "magic is gone" and without magic, the planet will die, and so will the universe.  Then, there's a character declaring that she built a life away from magic and now they are asking her to help save magic.  He-Man and a tiger both make inspirational "We'll face it together!" speeches.  Some sword of power was "divided" (like The Dagger and Excalibur)?  Someone else says "Being a hero swallows you whole" (thanks, Emma).  Then, the returning epic villain Skeletor.  

Edited July 3, 2021 by Camera One

[Camera One]

I watched the movie "Godmothered" about a young fairy-godmother student who travels to the "real world" and tries to give them a happily ever after.

The premise sounded interesting with potential, and while there were some fun moments, it felt like pieces of "Enchanted" crammed into a poorly written Hallmark Channel movie/Disney Channel clunk you over the head with a lesson TV movie.

The worldbuilding itself about fairy godmothers was just really bad.  They supposedly lived in an unoriginally named place called "The Motherland", and elderly women attended "fairy godmother school" with this young woman, learning the same lesson every day.  No one went on "assignment" anymore, because people stopped believing, or something, but they were doing nothing about it.

There were some fun moments when they got into "our world", and the main protagonist was mostly likeable.  I suppose it was mostly the sad sack "regular" people who were annoying, though the whole jaded single mother scenario was just so unoriginal and hokey that it dragged the whole movie down.

Anyway, I guess these are one of those meant-to-be "Straight to Disney+" productions, and it doesn't give me much confidence about the type of stuff they will be making for the streaming service.

Spoiler:

Spoiler

I'm not even going to talk about the cringe-worthy climax speech that rivaled Henry at the fountain about different types of "happily ever afters".  

 

Edited July 16, 2021 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

On 7/16/2021 at 12:36 AM, Camera One said:

I guess these are one of those meant-to-be "Straight to Disney+" productions, and it doesn't give me much confidence about the type of stuff they will be making for the streaming service.

Disney has this weird split personality. They're capable of extremely high-quality, groundbreaking productions, both on TV and in film. Some of the Disney+ originals have been brilliant. But even going back to before streaming, they've made a lot of utter crap, either direct to video or for the Disney Channel. There's an undercurrent of cynicism, like they're aware that there's an audience out there with very low standards who'll eat up anything Disney, and that kids, especially, will be fine with the worst, cheesiest nonsense. I used to catch the end of some of their tween-aimed sitcoms before Phineas & Ferb came on (they were really bad about starting things at off-times, like a minute or two past the hour), and it was bad enough that I'd have to hit the mute button. They had what I thought of as the Teen Starbots, who were mostly interchangeable, and they all had to also be pop stars for Radio Disney (usually heavily autotuned), but it was the broad kind of not-quite-up-to-par-for-high-school-drama acting and corny plots. It seems they're doing the same on D+, with the things either aimed at adults or with a likely crossover audience being high being high quality and the things aimed purely at kids and tweens being terrible.

[Camera One]

7 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

But even going back to before streaming, they've made a lot of utter crap, either direct to video or for the Disney Channel. 

It seemed like before streaming, it was easier to separate where the quality productions went versus the garbage.   Straight to video animated movies were always second rate.  I never had access to the Disney Channel but I didn't have a good impression of the productions there.  Theaters and ABC generally got the works with the higher production values.

I guess now with Disney+ exclusives, there have been some quality productions (I only get to watch Disney+ once in while when I'm at a friend's place, so I haven't really seen any but I assume stuff like "The Mandalorian" comes to mind).   So I'm not sure what "tier" "Godmothered" would have fallen into before  the streaming service.  

[Shanna Marie]

On 7/17/2021 at 8:56 PM, Camera One said:

So I'm not sure what "tier" "Godmothered" would have fallen into before  the streaming service. 

I watched it last night, out of curiosity, and I would have to say that it wouldn't have existed in its current incarnation before the streaming service.

The script was pure Family Channel/Freeform, circa 2010 or so. That was the channel that seemed aimed at older teens and adults, largely with the idea of mothers and teen daughters watching together. So, "cleaner" adult content that was aspirational for "when I grow up" for teens. It was pretty much their classic Christmas movie (before they gave up on that and let Hallmark take over the Christmas movie thing). We had the fantasy element, focus on personal growth rather than romance (but still with a hint of romance), the opportunity for the Disney teen starbot to sing, and enough slapstick humor to be kid-friendly. And, like many of the Christmas movies on all channels, they took a popular big-screen movie (Enchanted), and did a thinly veiled reworking of that concept (one of my hobbies in watching the Christmas movies is figuring out the source movie).

If it had been made before D+, it would have been a really low-budget production, probably filmed in Vancouver with a few Boston stock footage establishing shots, obviously fake snow on the ground, a former Disney Channel teen star who's now struggling to get adult roles even though she's well out of her teens playing the trainee godmother, one of the parents from the Disney tween sitcoms as the godmother's client, maybe a has-been sitcom star from the 80s as the head godmother, and the rest of the cast being the usual Vancouver bit player crowd (so, basically the secondary cast and non-name guest stars from OUAT -- Granny would have been one of the godmothers, Archie and one or two of the dwarfs would have been the heroine's coworkers, etc.), with cheap and cheesy special effects.

Instead, we got a Family Channel script filmed with Disney resources. The director was the same director who did the Bridget Jones films. Most of the cast has decent credentials. The trainee godmother has done indie films and is known as a comedian, then there were Isla Fisher and Jane Curtin. The narrator godmother actually once had an Oscar nomination. It was filmed on location in and around Boston, and that actually looked like real snow much of the time (production got cut off by the pandemic onset, so that means they'd have been filming in February and March -- the production cut-off is why there's that rather abrupt ending and the animated epilogue). The teen was in a Disney XD sitcom, so we still had our Disney teen starbot who gets to sing (though this one doesn't fit the generic mold most of their teen girls have, so she must have come from a different factory). The effects were done by ILM.

That gave it a weird disconnect because the writing was so corny that it would have fit better in a cheaper production, while the production itself looked pretty good. If you muted the dialogue and didn't pay attention to the story, you could imagine it looking pretty good even on the big screen.

I'm curious to know if this was a script written for D+ or acquired for D+ or if they took something that had previously been optioned for Freeform and threw Disney money at it. Did they want it to be that corny, or could they just not be bothered to make the script better than it was? It's the same problem I felt with a lot of their Disney Channel originals, where they seemed to think that they didn't have to make it good because their audience wouldn't be discerning enough to know the difference. Let's just say I have reason to believe that they're acquiring other properties to do things in a similar mold (the fantasy rom-com), so I'm trying to figure out where they're coming from in their originals.

[Shanna Marie]

I can confirm that D+ is starting to look for more adult programming (twentysomething and up) under the Disney umbrella instead of just the Marvel and Star Wars areas, so it's possible that Godmothered was meant for a teen and younger audience, since this is a shift (actually, the term used was "multi-quadrant," so aiming at 20somethings, but with appeal to teens and to older adults). It'll be interesting to see what they come up with. Hmm, I wonder if Epic might end up there if ABC doesn't want it, or was it just that the show wasn't working and wasn't going to work, regardless of where it was or what audience they were aiming for?

In other Disney news, I rewatched the original animated Mulan the other night. I hadn't seen it since I saw it at the theater during the original release, and I hadn't remembered much of anything about it. And, boy, did they miss the boat with the Once version. It's like they heard about the story and maybe saw a picture of the character, but that's it. I think that her being the tough, butch warrior woman missed the entire point of the movie. That wasn't true to who she was any more than the painted would-be bride was. When she saved the day and was her authentic self, it was as a clever, brave woman, not trying to be a warrior and dressing up in a man's armor. She wasn't a great warrior. She never won anything by fighting. She won by coming up with creative plans and doing the math in her head to make them work. They even showed her mental calculations. Animated movie Mulan was really more like Belle (particularly live-action Belle, who did some inventing) than she was like the Once version. Then there was her being some kind of nomad, wandering alone until she ran into Philip. Movie Mulan was all about family and went home right away, even though she was offered a position at the emperor's court. Again, the whole point of her story was her devotion to family. If they were going to change something that major about her, they should have given her a backstory to show what happened that separated her from her family, apparently with no desire to go back (or did they say something about that? Now I don't recall).

It's an interesting mental exercise to figure out how a Mulan more like the animated version would have fit into the Once world. Maybe we could have met her while she was posing as a man. Like, maybe her country (not!China) joined in the Snow vs. Regina war (on whichever side), then she was stuck there when the curse hit. She had to maintain the act when she was assigned to help Philip, but while she was able to fool the men, once she was guarding Aurora and was surrounded by Team Princess, they figured it out quickly. And then she could have helped them with creative solutions instead of just being a warrior.

[Camera One]

19 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

In other Disney news, I rewatched the original animated Mulan the other night.

Have you watched the live-action yet?  I was curious about your thoughts on it.

Quote

I think that her being the tough, butch warrior woman missed the entire point of the movie. That wasn't true to who she was any more than the painted would-be bride was. When she saved the day and was her authentic self, it was as a clever, brave woman

I rewatched the animated Mulan before the live action one, and I too had forgotten how the animated version showed her intelligence.  "Once" had a problem with showing anyone being particular smart... solutions were often based on brute force or hope, and the resolution was often due to coincidence and luck.   

Quote

Movie Mulan was all about family and went home right away, even though she was offered a position at the emperor's court. Again, the whole point of her story was her devotion to family. If they were going to change something that major about her, they should have given her a backstory to show what happened that separated her from her family, apparently with no desire to go back (or did they say something about that? Now I don't recall).

That brings up another problem with "Once".  For all A&E's boasting about featuring different types of love, they were generally NOT interested in family relationships.  Belle sacrificed her own happiness to free her father from the Beast's castle, but they made Maurice into a total jerk, and spent no time on reconciliation between Belle and Maurice.  It only reinforced the sense that Belle was just a puppet for Rumple's storylines.  As you said, Mulan's father and family did not figure at all on "Once".  Except for dumb possible-hints like the Dragon talking about his daughter who may or may not have been Mulan.  And of course, there was the entire dropping of the whole Emma/Snow relationship past 2A.  

A&E focused a lot more on family with the "Frozen" arc between Elsa and Anna, and their mother, and maybe that was because of Disney oversight forcing them to adhere to at least some of the "rules" of the universe rather than doing their own "twist" (which was often completely ignoring the source material... Tiana, anyone?).

Mulan's family should have figured in at least one of the flashback episodes, despite the "fun" of pairing Mulan with various female cameo characters.

Quote

She had to maintain the act when she was assigned to help Philip, but while she was able to fool the men, once she was guarding Aurora and was surrounded by Team Princess, they figured it out quickly. And then she could have helped them with creative solutions instead of just being a warrior.

Mulan dragging Emma and Snow in 2A reminded me of "Lost"'s own 2A and how the militant Ana-Lucia was treating any threat with no compassion.  

[Shanna Marie]

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

Have you watched the live-action yet?  I was curious about your thoughts on it.

I haven't. I may try it next weekend because I keep seeing writers using it as an example of what not to do and comparing it to the original, so I'm curious, even though it doesn't sound like something I'll really enjoy. They seem to have truly made her into some kind of warrior, and that may be truer to the actual legend, but I like that in the animated one she wasn't any kind of expert soldier. It makes more sense that she wouldn't be an expert fighter, since she had zero background in it. She only managed to stay in the army by being clever. She got some training, but she never actually used it.

Raya and the Last Dragon was closer to the warrior woman type, since she'd trained from childhood to defend the dragon heart, and even there, it was all about getting back to family and saving her father.

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

"Once" had a problem with showing anyone being particular smart... solutions were often based on brute force or hope, and the resolution was often due to coincidence and luck.   

Writing smart characters is really hard because it's difficult to create a situation complicated enough that they can't figure it out quickly. Mulan did a good job of making the force against her so overwhelming that she couldn't solve it all with pure brains. She was able to stall the Huns in the mountains, which allowed her group to escape but wasn't a total victory, and she then was one-on-one against the leader, who was much larger and a stronger fighter, while she was still a beginner as a fighter. She had to figure out another way to beat him. Once would have just given the bad guy overwhelming magic that made him invincible until he wasn't. And then it wouldn't have taken brains to beat him.

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

Mulan dragging Emma and Snow in 2A reminded me of "Lost"'s own 2A and how the militant Ana-Lucia was treating any threat with no compassion. 

Which is another way they missed the animated version, who was quite compassionate. She was in that fix because she was protecting her father, and then she was encouraging to the other losers in her group, and she was the one caring about and offering condolences to her captain. Kindness was one of her key traits. I'd think she'd have been gentler with the others, if they were being true to her character.

[CCTC]

The writing was not great for Mulan, but not sure the actress helped.  She did not really bring a lot of layers or subtext to her performance and just seemed antagonistic in season 2.  She was more likable when she appeared in later seasons, although it was not because the writing for her improved... 

[Speakeasy]

I've just finished the latest season of Freeform's Fort Salem, a series about an alternate world where witches exist and are drafted into the army upon reaching 18. It's a neat show, and it's got me thinking about magic systems and how to show magic visually.

In Fort Salem the magic looks very different from most-indeed I'd say from any on screen magic I can remember. The concept behind it is that the witches in this world generate power through sound, so when they use it they need to sing: not lyrically but more like an opera singer holding a particular note. There are visual effects that go with some of the spells too but what struck me was how it disallowed the usual TV magic visuals where someone will wave their hands or make a face to make a thing happen-doing magic in this show requires the full attention of the witch doing it, and it involves their whole face and body. This helps with the feel of the magic in this show, which is deliberately very visceral, and this is something that helps set the tone of the series. 

I've been thinking about how other visual depictions of magic give different impressions about what it is and how it works-as I said there's a lot of TV shows that go for someone flicking their hand or making a face to make something happen, though less so these days as budgets get bigger and effects get cheaper. I thought about 'Once' because there is a lot of flick-of-the-wrist telekinesis and glittery-jazz-hands, but there are also some very distinctive elements and visuals. 

For me heart-ripping is the definitive magic of the show; it's very unique as a concept and as a visual. The fact that the hearts that are pulled out by magic don't look like real hearts but that it's such an intensely dangerous and terrible thing in the show is an ingenious way to make something kind of whimsical but deadly serious at the same time. The fact that metaphors about the heart are literally true makes this even better: doing evil literally blackens your heart, removing your own heart makes you a psychopath because you are literally heartless, if someone steals your heart you are literally unable to resist them. It's great.

I also loved the Dark Curse-because of the idea that a curse isn't just an idea but a physical presence, I think that is really cool and something that they might have been able to do more with. I think it might have been better, or more unique at least, if all the dark magic used against people had been along those lines, something specific with a particular physical presence. An example would be something like the wraith lure Rumple sticks on Regina in season 2. Would have at least been more interesting than just flick-hand-now-you're-dead.

The other thing I really liked but which I think got left behind after season 3 at the latest was the idea of magic being based on emotion, and specifically with dark magic being based on anger and light magic based on love. I really liked that idea, I think the writers put it to good use in 2A but then decided it was too much trouble, which again is a shame. I think it might have been something you could take all kinds of different ways and honestly I think that would have been a better use of the colour coded jazz hands-you could have a bit of subtlety there so for instance if Emma is using her magic and it's usually gold but then in this episode it's more like burnt orange then a keen eyed viewer could tell something was going on. It also strikes me as very fairy-taley and whimsical-yet-serious since you could tie the world into the characters emotional state in a particularly fairy-taley way.

This might belong in the 'should have done X' thread. I'm not sure. Does anyone else have any Opinions in the mechanics and looks of magic in the series?

Edited September 21, 2021 by Speakeasy

[Shanna Marie]

On 9/21/2021 at 12:36 PM, Speakeasy said:

I've been thinking about how other visual depictions of magic give different impressions about what it is and how it works-as I said there's a lot of TV shows that go for someone flicking their hand or making a face to make something happen, though less so these days as budgets get bigger and effects get cheaper.

I liked the way they did magic on The Magicians, where they had some really specific hand motions and configurations that had to be done in conjunction with spells. It wasn't just glowy jazz hands. It looked more like a very complex sign language. It took a lot of practice for them to be able to do the hand motions just right, and you could hamper someone's magic by restraining their hands (or in some cases, cutting them off).

[Camera One]

I was watching this episode of "The Charmings" sitcom that aired in the 1980s.  I wish more episodes were available to watch.  There was a lot of humor to be mined in the concept of fairy tale characters existing in modern life.  Why do the Charmings always have to keep The Evil Queen around.  Sheesh, kick her out.

[Camera One]

I wonder what Disney's approach will be for the live-action "Snow White".  Today, they announced Gal Gadot has been cast to play The Evil Queen.  

The article said it will be a musical, so the composers of "La La Land" has been hired to write new songs for the movie.  Would that suggest they might stick closer to the animated story than some adaptations which have gone without the songs, like Cinderella.  They're also not calling the movie "The Evil Queen", so that suggests they are not going the "Maleficent" route.

I wonder if the Evil Queen will have a sob story.

Edited November 3, 2021 by Camera One

[Camera One]

I was thinking about how they could humanize or explain why a woman would try to kill her stepdaughter for being prettier than her, which A&E never tried to do.  Clearly, the Evil Queen's obsession with her looks meant that she was actually insecure.  Maybe she was taught that beauty was the only thing she has of value.  That could make the aging process difficult for her to deal with.  I guess they could combine that with jealousy that her husband paid so much attention to her daughter, or she believed Snow's presence was a constant reminder of her mother.  If the Evil Queen hated Snow's mother, that would add to the motivation (like Cora vs that mean, mean Eva).

[Shanna Marie]

Speaking of sad backstories, that reminds me that I watched the original animated 101 Dalmatians a few weeks ago, and it's really weird that they keep trying to come up with backstories for Cruella that explain her animosity toward Dalmatians, in this show and in the live-action Cruella movie, when the rationale given in the original cartoon makes total sense to me. She has no ill will toward Dalmatians. She just thinks their fur looks cool and would make an awesome coat. It's mentioned that she was a school friend of Anita's, and she thinks she can buy anything she wants, so it's easy to imagine that she's a spoiled rich girl -- basically a Veruca Salt type -- who has always been given everything she wants or has been able to whip out a checkbook to buy anything she wants, and when she's thwarted, she snaps and goes over the top to get what she wants because she can't cope with having a desire unfulfilled. There's no need to dig for any kind of psychological thing, and that's a lot more believable than anything they've come up with in their attempts to explain her. People like that exist in the real world. Maybe not to the extent of kidnapping puppies to make a fur coat, but who feel like they can buy anything they want, no matter what it is.

[Camera One]

13 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

Speaking of sad backstories, that reminds me that I watched the original animated 101 Dalmatians a few weeks ago, and it's really weird that they keep trying to come up with backstories for Cruella that explain her animosity toward Dalmatians, in this show and in the live-action Cruella movie, when the rationale given in the original cartoon makes total sense to me. She has no ill will toward Dalmatians. She just thinks their fur looks cool and would make an awesome coat. 

I rewatched the animated before the live action as well, and I agree that her motivations were believable.  It's interesting that both "Once" and the live action made her "hate" Dalmatians because the dogs were owned by the woman that each Cruella hated most.  Then again, the live-action version didn't even try to make Cruella into someone who would ever wear a coat made out of real dog fur.  I'm still disappointed we never got Anita and Roger on "Once".  I was sure they would be portrayed as dastardly villains who was really mean to Cruella.  Alternatively, they could have said Cruella was actually Wish Cinderella turned bad, because Lady Tremaine owned Dalmatians and she was out for revenge.  Sounds familiar, eh?

Edited November 5, 2021 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

9 hours ago, Camera One said:

I'm still disappointed we never got Anita and Roger on "Once".

I was just thinking that, too, but I was considering that Archie could have made for a character mash-up and could have been the "Roger," since he owned Pongo, and he's a similar character type. It's something that would have had to come up during season one, when the curse was weakening enough for time to be working but not enough for them to remember their identities. That would explain how they hadn't met for 28 years in the same town, if they were living more or less time loops and she was in a different part of town, so their paths never crossed. Once time started moving, they could have moved out of their ruts and had the meet-cute with the dogs in the park bringing them together. Anita could have served as a sounding board to him when he was conflicted about how to deal with Henry vs. what Regina demanded. Then cue angst when they get their identities back and he remembers he's a cricket. It works as long as they're in Storybrooke, but then the curse reverse complicates things (assuming she's not also an enchanted bug). This scenario sort of makes Regina the Cruella who's tormenting them, which would have messed up the appearance of the actual Cruella, who wouldn't have had any backstory with them (unless maybe Anita was one of those people brought from a different world by the curse for some strange personal reason of Regina's, so she had been Cruella's school friend). But she could have targeted them once she was in Storybrooke. Maybe while Cruella was playing Queen of Darkness she decided she wanted another coat, and Pongo and Perdita had just had puppies.

I was also thinking about how OUAT put Cruella in the 20s, but the Disney movie seems set in the 50s. Actually, the timeline in that movie is confusing because most of the cultural and visual cues look very 30s, from the vehicles to the clothes, but the puppies watch TV, which didn't come along as a technology until the 40s, and it was the 50s before there was that kind of programming. This is probably digging a little too deep culturally for a kids' cartoon that was made on the cheap (they took advantage of Xerox technology to animate all the puppies, since they could photocopy them), but it looks a lot more like a between-the-wars London than an immediate post-war London. Like, middle-class people struggling financially still having a live-in housekeeper, which was a lot less common post-war. Remove the TV and the 30s fits perfectly. If they're in the early-to-mid 30s, then I guess Cruella would have been a teenager/young adult in the 20s, so that would make the OUAT version sort of fit.

[Camera One]

9 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

I was just thinking that, too, but I was considering that Archie could have made for a character mash-up and could have been the "Roger," since he owned Pongo, and he's a similar character type.

This scenario sort of makes Regina the Cruella who's tormenting them, which would have messed up the appearance of the actual Cruella, who wouldn't have had any backstory with them (unless maybe Anita was one of those people brought from a different world by the curse for some strange personal reason of Regina's, so she had been Cruella's school friend). But she could have targeted them once she was in Storybrooke. Maybe while Cruella was playing Queen of Darkness she decided she wanted another coat, and Pongo and Perdita had just had puppies.

I like that idea.  The Queens of Darkness were hanging around town doing such lame things that maybe this would have been a better use of Cruella's time.  

When did Cruella leave the 30s world?  Given her power over animals, they could have had her affect the werewolves, and have that play a role in Granny's history.

Edited November 6, 2021 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

On 11/5/2021 at 1:41 AM, Camera One said:

I'm still disappointed we never got Anita and Roger on "Once".

I'm actually a little surprised they didn't just name Cruella's mom "Anita", since at that point, shameless namedropping was ubiquitous. 

Edited November 25, 2021 by KingOfHearts

[Shanna Marie]

I've been rewatching the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. I've seen the first one a number of times, but the later ones I've mostly just caught random scenes on TV (after seeing them in the theater when they came out), so I don't remember a lot about the stories. Last night was Dead Man's Chest, and it struck me that the Once "heart" mythology seems to come straight from that. Davy Jones ripped out his heart and kept it in a box because it was causing him pain, and others were looking for that heart because it might give them power over him.

I'm sure these concepts didn't originate with this movie. I'm pretty sure I recall a fairy tale in which the villain kept their heart elsewhere and the way to kill him was to find his heart, and I even have a vague recollection of a fairy tale about removing a heart to avoid pain, leaving the person cold and unfeeling. But the odds of the Once writers having a deep knowledge of obscure fairy tales rather than a popular movie that would have come out during the time they were developing this series are pretty slim.

[Camera One]

Just now, Shanna Marie said:

I've been rewatching the Pirates of the Caribbean movies.

I've never seen any of them since pirate movies don't appeal to me.  But I think I will try to watch them now.

I'm watching the original "Superman" movies for the first time.  I know "Once" didn't have the rights, but it would have interesting to see half a season in a comic book/superheroes world.  

I was also watching the older "Spiderman" movies from the 2000s. I haven't seen the newer Marvel Spiderman at all (I am stuck at Thor 2 for the newer Marvel movies so I haven't seen any of the Tom Holland ones yet).

I noticed that both villains in the first and second Tobey Maguire movie, and also the villain in the first Andrew Garfield movie were ordinary people (scientists) who became controlled by "technology" (DNA I guess), though they did have some thirst for power or renown.  And (spoiler alert), at the end, Spiderman basically appealed to the villains' humanity - the people they used to be, and some of the villains sacrificed themselves to undo some of the damage they had done/were planning.

That followed the pattern of a few of the "Once" villains... Regina/The Evil Queen (though she didn't actually die), Rumple, Ingrid, Victoria Belfrey (sort of, though moreso to save her own daughter).

[Shanna Marie]

49 minutes ago, Camera One said:

I've never seen any of them since pirate movies don't appeal to me.  But I think I will try to watch them now.

I think these are more fantasy movies with swashbuckling than they are "pirate" movies. There's almost no actual piracy (sacking and looting, that sort of thing) in them, aside from a sequence early in the first movie. They treat pirates as though they're some kind of oppressed subculture, which is a little eyeroll worthy, but since there's a lot of magical stuff going on around the pirates, I just consider it secondary world fantasy where piracy is a culture rather than an activity and go with it. We have cursed undead zombie pirates on a semi-mythical ship, Davy Jones and his crew on the Flying Dutchman, journeys to other worlds, mythical creatures, etc. And some really inventive action sequences. The structure of the second two movies is pretty bad. The story's a bit bloated. But I think if you look at the second two movies as a season in a streaming series, it works better. The action is pretty episodic, so it's easy to mentally break them into separate episodes. The third movie is nearly 3 hours long, so you might need a break, anyway.

Still, they're mostly dumb fun. We've got magic, a good cast, lots of swordfighting, lots of humor and a bit of romance. When I had cable and these were on all the time, I'd watch some of the fun "episodes" and then flip to something else instead of watching straight through.

The "Jolly Roger" shows up in these films, with the Lady Washington playing at least one role and I think she pops up again. She plays just about all the smaller British ships. Maybe I should add that to "cast in other roles" thread. "Grumpy" is also in them, in a secondary role as one of the comic relief pirates.

I've only seen the 4th movie in bits and pieces on cable (but I recall that our Pan is in it) and haven't seen the 5th.

[Camera One]

18 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

I think these are more fantasy movies with swashbuckling than they are "pirate" movies.

Good to know.  I've been watching movie series lately from the past that I never got to.  I finally watched "The Matrix" (the first three).  On "Once", they could have had going inside a "storybook" be similar to entering the Matrix.  There would still be stakes and it might have been fun to enter alternate worlds with the same stories but different versions.  And they could be seeking "The Author" and "The Sorcerer".  The red pill/blue pill thing is sort of reminiscent of Alice in Wonderland.

[Shanna Marie]

More Pirates parallels to the Once series that I've noticed:

There's a character who, if you kill him, you get eternal life, but you also become his replacement.

And there's a compass that points to the thing you want to find -- similar to the compass in Wonderland that points to the thing you've lost that you want to find again.

And the lead female character is Elizabeth Swan, referred to often by the villains as "Miss Swan." There had to have been some inspiration in there.

[Shanna Marie]

Looks like A&E's Gaston series isn't going to make it. They specifically mentioned "creative reasons," saying that the scripts weren't coming together in a direction Disney liked. Which makes me wonder what direction they were taking. Supposedly, the concept isn't totally gone, but they may try again with a different creative team. They have to actually kill the project to start over with different writers without the old writers still getting credit and pay for "creating" the series.

[Camera One]

A&E hasn't had a stellar track record lately for bringing projects to fruition.  I too am curious what "direction" was problematic.

Quote

Set in the iconic kingdom of Beauty and the Beast years before the Beast and Belle’s epic romance, the series follows Gaston (Evans) and LeFou (Gad) as they set off with LeFou’s step-sister, Tilly (Middleton), after a surprising revelation from her past comes to light, sending the unlikely trio off on an unexpected journey filled with romance, comedy, and adventure. While the mysteries of the past are uncovered and the dangers of the present grow, old friends and new enemies reveal that this familiar kingdom harbors many secrets.

I'm not sure how character development would work in a prequel with a villain like Gaston where you know he can't be redeemed.  Unless he used to be a guy with a heart of gold but he was betrayed so that's why he turned out the way he did.  And then there's Tilly's "surprising revelation from her past", which is right up A&E's flashback alley.   

[Shanna Marie]

On 2/11/2022 at 7:56 PM, Camera One said:

Unless he used to be a guy with a heart of gold but he was betrayed so that's why he turned out the way he did.

I suspect that's exactly it, and Disney may not have been super-keen on Gaston being depicted as a good guy. Then again, they were okay with making Maleficent into a saintly victim. Maybe it was the prince who was turned into the Beast who betrayed him, so it's the Beast's fault that Gaston became a jerk. That might bother Disney. Or they heart-of-golded Gaston so much that he was no longer recognizably Gaston, just someone with the same name, played by the same guy as in the live-action version, and that diminished the brand somewhat. No one wants to see Gaston as a sad victim moping around and being pure of heart.

[Camera One]

15 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

No one wants to see Gaston as a sad victim moping around and being pure of heart.

Couldn't they have made him bold and audacious?  

15 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

Maybe it was the prince who was turned into the Beast who betrayed him, so it's the Beast's fault that Gaston became a jerk. That might bother Disney.

That would have been right up their alley.  A&E could do that on "Once", but these are the same actors who played them in the virtual carbon-copy live-action, so maybe it's a bit more difficult to sully the reputation of the Beast or change it up too much?  Like The Beast threw out his baby sister, who is actually Lefou's stepsister, so Gaston is trying to help her regain her birthright. 

Or Maurice's new invention ended up destroying Gaston's family home and resulted in his father being killed or something.  There are so many "Wouldn't it be cool if..." when you are free to mangle source material, but harder when you're constrained.

15 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

I suspect that's exactly it, and Disney may not have been super-keen on Gaston being depicted as a good guy. Then again, they were okay with making Maleficent into a saintly victim. 

I wonder if they would have tried to do with Gaston what they did with Hook?  But it's harder because on "Once", they did flashbacks to Killian the Good Guy, and still have his quippy bad boy persona in the present-day.  

In this TV series, though, it's mostly focused on a younger Gaston.  Unless he was already a bit of a jerk, and the flashbacks tell his sob story.  

I haven't watched Maleficent in awhile (and don't plan to), but as a movie, it was also easier since the first part was basically Maleficent pure as driven snow but then she could be "deliciously evil" in the rest of it.  

Edited February 13, 2022 by Camera One

[Speakeasy]

On 2/13/2022 at 6:15 PM, Camera One said:

Couldn't they have made him bold and audacious?  

That would have been right up their alley.  A&E could do that on "Once", but these are the same actors who played them in the virtual carbon-copy live-action, so maybe it's a bit more difficult to sully the reputation of the Beast or change it up too much?  Like The Beast threw out his baby sister, who is actually Lefou's stepsister, so Gaston is trying to help her regain her birthright. 

Or Maurice's new invention ended up destroying Gaston's family home and resulted in his father being killed or something.  There are so many "Wouldn't it be cool if..." when you are free to mangle source material, but harder when you're constrained.

I wonder if they would have tried to do with Gaston what they did with Hook?  But it's harder because on "Once", they did flashbacks to Killian the Good Guy, and still have his quippy bad boy persona in the present-day.  

In this TV series, though, it's mostly focused on a younger Gaston.  Unless he was already a bit of a jerk, and the flashbacks tell his sob story.  

I haven't watched Maleficent in awhile (and don't plan to), but as a movie, it was also easier since the first part was basically Maleficent pure as driven snow but then she could be "deliciously evil" in the rest of it.  

Gaston is a lot harder to make sympathetic than Maleficent or Cruella or the Wicked Witch of the West or Ursula (when they inevitably do that) because they are all weirdoes who live outside society and pop in to antagonise the heroes (broadly speaking). You can reframe that outsider status for a modern audience as them being persecuted and angry at the society that rejected them. Even if their victims are sweet and wholesome and likeable, they are still well liked members of normal society, so you can frame the villains going after them as just anger at that society, or at someone who is powerful in that society who hurt the villain in the past. Even when you have someone like Regina as a sympathetic villain on top of the social ladder, she is only there through the threat of force, clearly hated by the people she is oppressing, and still isolated and miserable, whatever resources she may have.

Gaston, meanwhile, is at the top of the (admittedly fairly low) social pyramid in his story. He is roundly admired and spends his time persecuting Belle and her elderly father-a pair of likeable oddballs who live on the margins and are shunned by their small-minded neighbours. There's no obvious way to demonstrate that anyone should feel sorry for him when he just seems to be a simple-minded bully.

That's the other thing-Gaston has very clear and understandable motives in the movie: he's a brat. He is used to getting what he wants, he gets almost everything he wants as a popular local hero, and he throws a series of tantrums when he doesn't get absolutely everything he wants. You can elaborate on why Maleficent might want to kill a baby or the Evil Queen might be so obsessed and angry with her stepdaughter being beautiful, because those are unusual and you can speculate on what's going on to make them act so strangely. An entitled, provincial thug who wants to coerce a vulnerable young woman into a relationship has an obvious, mundane and ugly motivation which is a lot harder to work with.

[Shanna Marie]

On 2/19/2022 at 3:11 AM, Speakeasy said:

Gaston, meanwhile, is at the top of the (admittedly fairly low) social pyramid in his story. He is roundly admired and spends his time persecuting Belle and her elderly father-a pair of likeable oddballs who live on the margins and are shunned by their small-minded neighbours. There's no obvious way to demonstrate that anyone should feel sorry for him when he just seems to be a simple-minded bully.

In the live-action version (which the series seems to be based on, given that they're using the same casting), there's a suggestion that he's got PTSD from his military service. I didn't feel like they were using it to excuse his actions. It was more a case of showing the danger he posed and somewhat explaining his relationship with LeFou. LeFou knew what was up with him and could manage him when he got in a bad state. But I could see certain writers (ahem) using that as a way to generate sympathy, especially if the story takes place in the time period when he was a soldier and whatever it was that gave him the PTSD happened.

I wonder if they were planning to do the flashback structure in this series (these guys seem to have just that one trick in their arsenal). I'd think it would be hard to do because Gaston is dead in the present. They'd have to make the "present" be either soon before or during the B&B story (while Belle's in the castle, so they don't have to worry about getting Emma Watson) and then flash back to his earlier days, but there's not much for him to do in the "present." It would work a lot better for it to just be a flat-out prequel, set entirely in that earlier time period, without all the complication of parallel timelines. If they were insisting on that structure, that could be another cause of "creative differences."

[Camera One]

10 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

But I could see certain writers (ahem) using that as a way to generate sympathy, especially if the story takes place in the time period when he was a soldier and whatever it was that gave him the PTSD happened.

I wonder if they were planning to do the flashback structure in this series (these guys seem to have just that one trick in their arsenal). I'd think it would be hard to do because Gaston is dead in the present. They'd have to make the "present" be either soon before or during the B&B story (while Belle's in the castle, so they don't have to worry about getting Emma Watson) and then flash back to his earlier days, but there's not much for him to do in the "present." It would work a lot better for it to just be a flat-out prequel, set entirely in that earlier time period, without all the complication of parallel timelines. If they were insisting on that structure, that could be another cause of "creative differences."

Given they are using the actors as they are now, I was assuming the prequel would be set a few years before the events of "Beauty and the Beast", but not too far back.  It seems like the plot was a journey/adventure with Lefou and his stepsister.  I suspect they would start the series before the PTSD event occurred, when Gaston was simply over-confident.

I also thought maybe the flashbacks would be more about the "secrets" of Lefou's stepsister, maybe involving The Prince aka The Beast, which would somehow provide further reason for Gaston to despise him.  Maybe there would be flashbacks of Gaston as a teenager, showing how his family was hurt by The Beast's parents or something.

I watched 1-2 scene clips to remind myself about *this* Gaston and he didn't seem as repulsive as the animated one (just based on those few clips).  They also showed Lefou paying people off at the tavern to join in to sing about what a great guy Gaston was, so maybe he wasn't as beloved by the people.

Edited March 6, 2022 by Camera One

[Camera One]

I was watching the Obi-Wan Kenobi teaser trailer and the words flashing on the screen were "Between Darkness.  And Defeat.  Hope Survives."  

I had to laugh since "Once" could use the same tagline too.  I wonder if this series is about how Obi Wan Kenobi went to the Enchanted Forest and made a deal with Rumplestiltskin after Peter Pan stole young Luke Skywalker from Tatooine and Darth Vader made a deal with Nimue taking some of the Darkness into his lightsaber.

[tennisgurl]

So Mr. Tennisgurl and I have been playing our way through Kingdom Hearts, a game that I was aware of but had never played while he has been a longtime fan. As we have been playing through its many many games, I couldn't help but notice the multiple similarities between the games and the show. Even beyond the very premise, Disney crossover where protagonists have to jump from one Disney world to the next to fight villains with nebulous goals, there are so many similarities that they just cannot be coincidences. Tons of vague talk about light being good and darkness being bad, a million speeches about friendship and hope, hearts being damaged by darkness because they had an impure thought or did something wrong, which is always shown to be a slippery slope towards the dark side then having to clean the bad gunk out of their hearts, probably the thing that struck me the most though were bad guys have a real tendency towards black cloaks, including in the backstory, which makes them very much look like the previous Dark Ones or the Coat hangers. Some of that is just typical Disney stuff, but some of it looks so similar it had to have been an inspiration, even beyond the premise.

[Camera One]

7 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

Tons of vague talk about light being good and darkness being bad, a million speeches about friendship and hope, hearts being damaged by darkness because they had an impure thought or did something wrong, which is always shown to be a slippery slope towards the dark side then having to clean the bad gunk out of their hearts

I haven't played but I watched the cutscenes on Youtube a while back and I totally agree with all the similarities to "Once"!  

[Camera One]

It's not easy finding just fun and non-depressing things to watch sometimes.

Tonight, I decided to watch "The Return of Jafar", the direct-to-home-video sequel to "Aladdin".  I watched it once when I was a kid, and didn't think much of it.

The animation was really subpar and the music was a step down, but it was more watchable than I thought it would be.  I remembered nothing about it, so I was surprised to find the second movie is basically a redemption story for Iago, which sort of worked.  

It once again reminded me of the lame Aladdin storyline in Season 6.  

[Camera One]

The third Aladdin movie "Aladdin and the King of Thieves" was more problematic, even though it was less predictable than the previous one with Jafar as the enemy.

I thought Aladdin's father was really unlikeable and they did a bad job of redeeming him.  It seemed like he was only after gold and treasure.  They sort of reversed Iago's redemption from the previous movie too.  The story just felt really badly written.  

They got Robin Williams back as the Genie, and there were a lot of amusing cameos from other Disney movies in this one and he did lots of his off-the-wall improvisations/ad-libs, but some of it went on a tad too long and was a distraction.  

Meanwhile, for the third movie straight, Aladdin continued to have a difficult time telling the truth to Jasmine, which was getting irritating as well.  

A weird moral issue with this movie was they seemed to just let some of the 40 thieves drown, even though they weren't completely evil and were misled by the actual evil guy.  Meanwhile, others were imprisoned, while Aladdin's father, the KING of the thieves, got to go away free.

After rewatching these, I do think they should just start from scratch with the live action sequel.  I suppose they could use elements of Aladdin trying to find his father, but it would need to be completely reworked.  

Musically, though, this one had a few songs which were better.

Edited April 17, 2022 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

Spoilers for the latest episode (episode 5) of Moon Knight.

Spoiler

There's literally a scene where a character rips out the heart of a character exactly like how it happened in Once Upon a Time. Only it was to weigh the hearts for afterlife shenanigans. I saw people commenting about it and all the Regina fans came out of the woodwork. 

I don't think I've ever seen a show or movie do that sort of thing, other than Once Upon a Time and now Moon Knight. 

As a side note, I'm glad fantasy shows are still happening, even if it's not modeled after the "prime time drama" format OUAT was.

Edited April 27, 2022 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

On 4/27/2022 at 9:32 AM, KingOfHearts said:

Spoilers for the latest episode (episode 5) of Moon Knight.

  Hide contents

There's literally a scene where a character rips out the heart of a character exactly like how it happened in Once Upon a Time. Only it was to weigh the hearts for afterlife shenanigans. I saw people commenting about it and all the Regina fans came out of the woodwork. 

 

I decided to try the show after you mentioned it.  

Spoiler

Throughout, I was trying to figure out how it connected with "Once".  In the first episode, I was thinking what was happening to his character (waking up and not remembering doing horrible things) was sort of like Red not realizing she was a werewolf.  

When I finally got to Episode 5 and the asylum, I must say I momentarily thought about that horrible episode with Fiona in the psych hospital.

I actually thought Episode 5 would end with the main character(s) realizing that "We are both" and by combining their two hearts, the scales would balance, LOL.

In Episode 4 with the girlfriend, I thought it was a reminiscent of those "Once" arguments about romantic interests who killed the other person's father/grandfather/etc.

Too bad "Once" didn't explore Egyptian gods.

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by Camera One

[KAOS Agent]

On 4/27/2022 at 10:32 AM, KingOfHearts said:

I don't think I've ever seen a show or movie do that sort of thing, other than Once Upon a Time and now Moon Knight. 

 Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom did it in 1984. Although that movie used the Blood of Kali to control people. 

[KingOfHearts]

On 5/3/2022 at 1:21 AM, Camera One said:

Too bad "Once" didn't explore Egyptian gods

Obviously, A&E were planning to get to it in S8 before the show got *unexpectedly* canceled.

[Camera One]

This cartoon basically summarizes Regina's problem.

https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16330

[KingOfHearts]

On 5/25/2022 at 10:14 PM, Camera One said:

This cartoon basically summarizes Regina's problem.

https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16330

She's only doing that because Snow White "never thinks about consequences."

It still to this day blows my mind Regina blamed Snow for decades instead of Cora. It's not even like she didn't blame Cora for anything else. I may have bought it if Snow was older (16-18) and intentionally wanted to get Daniel out of the picture so Regina would marry her dad, but didn't realize Cora would straight up murder Daniel.

Edited May 27, 2022 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

I watched the "Obi-Wan Kenobi" TV series this week, and I think it could have merged with Season 8 of "Once Upon a Time" (along with elements from the first Star Wars movie "A New Hope").  Spoilers for the show below.

In this Season 8, Regina is settling into her role as The Good Queen of the Universe when a space probe crashes into the forest.  Out of the probe emerges R2D2 carrying a message from Princess Leia that Obi-Wan Kenobi is her only hope.  Regina and the Wise Council made up of Adult Henry, Murderella, Queen Tiana, Zelena, Alice and Robyn of course discuss this over a plate of beignets.  They look all over town for this Obi-Wan Kenobi fellow, and finally find him and he's in hiding.  You see, he was a former Savior, but he has lost all hope.  Sadly, fellow Savior Emma is out of town with Snowing helping Pocahontas.  Without the Savior to help another Savior, it is up to the all inspirational Lucy to embark on an adventure with Obi-Wan (they are stranded due to a sudden magical storm) to help him gain his confidence and mission in life.  

Obi-Wan is in danger, though.   He is being hunted by an Inquisitor named Reva who has turned dark due to her vengeance.  However, near the end of Season 8A, Murderella shares her experience with trying to kill Lady Tremaine and helps her to see revenge isn't the answer.  Lucy befriends a boy Luke Skywalker, leading to a cute date between the two (as Lucy gets inspired by his dad and 80s music), and we find out Obi-Wan is protecting him. 

Meanwhile, Obi-Wan trains Alice in The Force.  You might remember that Mother Gothel was once a Sith since she loved wearing hoods, so Alice is gifted in The Force as well.  Alice trains as a Jedi.  But she is plague by nightmares of Mother Gothel who lives on as The Dowager Empress (who once faced Mulan, as we see in flashback).

As a team, everyone travels to save Leia in Season 8B, who has been captured by Darth Vader on Treasure Planet.  Stay tuned for the second half of the season, when we find out Darth Vader was tutored by none other than (drumroll special guest star) Rumplestiltskin, the Dark One.   We will also meet Leia as tries to kill them all because she is like Merida with a fighting spirit and Walls that make it hard for her to trust anyone, even people who are trying to help her.  We won't ruin the surprise that The Empress is brewing another Dark Curse!  Since we know you all miss Hyperion Heights (hint hint, Season 9!).

Edited July 1, 2022 by Camera One