OUAT vs. Other Fairy Tales: Compare & Contrast

[Camera One]

I couldn't find this thread, so recreated the old one.  

 

I guess this is for discussion of "Once Upon a Time" compared to the source material, and other adaptations such as films.

 

--------------------

 

I just watched "Frozen" last night, mostly because of the season finale and to get a sense of what next season will entail.

 

* Beware "Frozen" spoilers below...

 

I thought the movie wasn't bad, but I also wasn't that impressed either.  It wasn't really a traditional Disney animated film where there was a clear villain, until the reveal almost at the end of the film.  Which is refreshing in a way but the first third of the film seemed to drag because of it with almost no forward momentum.  When it was revealed that the Prince was actually evil, it came out of nowhere and it reminded me of "Once Upon a Time" and not in a good way (aka Tamara).  I actually liked the Prince more than that ice breaker guy.  The relationship between Anna and Elsa felt really undefined as well.  So Elsa was shut up in the room all the time?  Did she come out for dinner?  She spent all those years and STILL couldn't control the freezing power?  Even with gloves on?  Why didn't she just wear gloves all the time?  And what happened in the 3 years after the parents died, and Elsa became Queen?  Who was the regent during this time?  I can understand why Horowitz and Kitsis said they loved the movie, since it was a typical sob story for a misunderstood so-called villain, except in this case, Elsa wasn't really a villain except for sending that giant evil snowman to chase her sister.  But she was just crying in the castle, so maybe she forgot she sent that thing which pretty much could have killed Anna by throwing her off a cliff?  

[Mari]

I haven't seen it, yet.  (Now, even less sure that I want to.)

 

Why did she send a giant evil snowman to chase her sister?

 

If she was in her room all the time, how did the sisters become close?  Because there are buckets of comments mentioning the movie's about the close relationship between sisters?

[Camera One]

You should still watch it, Mari.  Don't let my negative comments affect that, since I think most people loved the movie.  

 

The two sisters were really close when they were very young (at the beginning of the movie), but Elsa's magic accidentally hurt Anna. The healers fixed Anna but erased her memory of the event, and Elsa stayed in her room all the time to avoid putting her little sister in danger.  

 

I think the giant snowman was just meant to make sure Anna (the younger sister) left and went back home, and was an excuse for action sequences.  I don't think the audience was meant to conclude that Elsa didn't care about hurting her sister.  Since in this movie, you can fall off a cliff and still be okay since it's "just snow".  

[Writing Wrongs]

I went to see Maleficent for the second time. I really love it. Angelina Jolie is so perfectly cast. When she announces the curse on Aurora it is the same dialogue as the animated version and she sounds spot on.

 

I really think people who watch Once will like it. They don't do a Regina type misunderstood villain thing at all. Her backstory makes sense.

[Amberosia]

The way Regina was going in on Emma about what else she may have screwed up, I got the impression that Once's Elsa might night be a good-natured as the Elsa of Frozen. I'm intrigued but.... I just don't know what to make of it. And its been ages since I've even thought about The Snow Queen, let alone read it, so I can't even remember how the actual story goes. But I did love Frozen, and I love OUaT, so I remain ever hopeful... then again, I stuck with Heroes til the bitter end and was still miffed when it ended, so maybe I'm not the best judge of things. 

[Aliasscape]

I really enjoyed Frozen but I saw it early, before there was all the hype and expectations.
 

I thought the movie wasn't bad, but I also wasn't that impressed either.  It wasn't really a traditional Disney animated film where there was a clear villain, until the reveal almost at the end of the film.  Which is refreshing in a way but the first third of the film seemed to drag because of it with almost no forward momentum.  When it was revealed that the Prince was actually evil, it came out of nowhere and it reminded me of "Once Upon a Time" and not in a good way (aka Tamara).  I actually liked the Prince more than that ice breaker guy.

 I actually was rather surprised about Hans the first time and felt it was a little out of nowhere but on rewatches they did lay a lot of the groundwork for his motivations. I liked it when I saw it the second time. I liked a villain that he's the real life villain girls will encounter in their lives. Not usually going to be wicked witches or stepmothers but men who are handsome, charming and friendly on the surface but are simply out to use and abuse you. That might dump you the second you don't fit into his plans and could kill you if that turns out to be the most convenient way to be rid of you. So I actually applaud them for having a villain anyone could meet while the "guy" is not perfect, but regular and average. Kristoff was rougher around the edges but he actually genuinely cared about Anna.
 

The relationship between Anna and Elsa felt really undefined as well.  So Elsa was shut up in the room all the time?  Did she come out for dinner?  She spent all those years and STILL couldn't control the freezing power?  Even with gloves on?  Why didn't she just wear gloves all the time?  And what happened in the 3 years after the parents died, and Elsa became Queen?  Who was the regent during this time?  I can understand why Horowitz and Kitsis said they loved the movie, since it was a typical sob story for a misunderstood so-called villain, except in this case, Elsa wasn't really a villain except for sending that giant evil snowman to chase her sister.  But she was just crying in the castle, so maybe she forgot she sent that thing which pretty much could have killed Anna by throwing her off a cliff?

Elsa's power didn't only radiate from hands without gloves you'll note. She could freeze things by stomping her foot as well and wearing shoes or slippers did not prevent the ground from freezing over. Her parents kept her isolated and terrified, and ashamed of herself and her powers so she never developed the confidence to deal with her powers. I find the parents to be abusive. Not intentionally but (just as I'm always saying with Regina) it doesn't matter if it was intentional or not, they mentally and emotionally damaged their daughter for like a decade. They did not know how to be the parents Elsa needed.

 

I believe the Snowman was more meant to be a guard. But the stuff she makes takes on a life of it's own once it is made I have no idea if it was then beyond her control and only just contained her will to have no one enter the castle.

If she was in her room all the time, how did the sisters become close?  Because there are buckets of comments mentioning the movie's about the close relationship between sisters?

 

 

They were close when they were young children and on those happy memories Anna had an undying need/desire to help save her sister. She will do absolutely anything for her. Even though they're apart for the majority of the movie, you still can see a bond in how Anna feels about and is willing to sacrifice for her sister.

[Camera One]

I still haven't seen "Maleficient" but I kind of find it funny that I'm reading a lot more comments around the internet like "Maleficient is not a real villain", "Maleficient is just misunderstood", etc. etc.  etc.  LOL!  When have I heard that one before.  

 

I just rewatched the animated Sleeping Beauty, and that Maleficient was plain evil and nothing is going to change my mind about that.  

[SilverShadow]

I've seen the movie, and it's very clearly an alternate universe from the animated film. If nothing else the three fairies have different names and personalities and

Maleficent finds the cottage where Aurora is hidden right away.

So Animated!Maley can be the Mistress of All Evil, Jolie!Maley can be misunderstood, and Once!Maley can be woefully underdeveloped and underused.

Edited June 18, 2014 by SilverShadow

[myril]

Putting the dazzling screen presence of Jolie as Maleficent aside the movie was at best mediocre. Very Once-ish. Have the same problem with the movie that I have with Once Upon. Digging deeper one can find some interesting themes in it, but that seems to be more by accident, because the execution of it is poor. It's like Once with far bigger CGI budget and a spectacular Jolie.

[Writing Wrongs]

Sleeping Beauty's Maleficent wasn't really fleshed out as to why she was villainous and cursed Aurora. Maleficent just fleshes out her story with a different take. I don't understand people's comparisons and criticisms.

[ShadowFacts]

 

I liked it when I saw it the second time. I liked a villain that he's the real life villain girls will encounter in their lives. Not usually going to be wicked witches or stepmothers but men who are handsome, charming and friendly on the surface but are simply out to use and abuse you. That might dump you the second you don't fit into his plans and could kill you if that turns out to be the most convenient way to be rid of you. So I actually applaud them for having a villain anyone could meet while the "guy" is not perfect, but regular and average. Kristoff was rougher around the edges but he actually genuinely cared about Anna.

 

This is actually what I liked best about the story.  Falling for a guy and getting engaged in one day is not smart.  Discovering someone who is not blatantly charming, and getting to know them over time, is shown to be the wiser way.  I liked that better than the sister relationship, which just wasn't fleshed out enough.  But that was good, too, as that was the relationship that proved crucial, not a romantic one. 

[Aliasscape]

This is actually what I liked best about the story.  Falling for a guy and getting engaged in one day is not smart.  Discovering someone who is not blatantly charming, and getting to know them over time, is shown to be the wiser way.  I liked that better than the sister relationship, which just wasn't fleshed out enough.  But that was good, too, as that was the relationship that proved crucial, not a romantic one. 

Plus while Kristoff is around in the end, there's nothing saying they're getting married the next day or week. They may spend months dating and getting to know each other even better. I have a sad feeling that Once however will pretend they got married after they were done ice skating.

[Camera One]

I thought this Maleficient video was mildly amusing:

[Shanna Marie]

I read a book recently that those who might be princessed-out (or who need more princesses) might find fun: Princesses Behaving Badly by Linda Rodriguez McRobbie. It's a collection of accounts from history all over the world of princesses, would-be princesses and other royals who didn't exactly fit the Disney mold. There were even some princesses who were bandits and pirates.

 

I kind of want to send a copy to the writing staff of this show to give them some inspiration, except they'd probably only notice the ones where the princesses were victimized and went mad and use it as fodder for more Regina stories.

[Camera One]

Photo of Kristen Chenoweth as Maleficient in new Disney Channel movie called "Descendants", about the children of Disney villains (and protagonists) who go to a prep school together.

http://insidetv.ew.com/2014/06/19/kristin-chenoweth-maleficent-descendants-2/

This article has more general background info on the movie:

http://family-room.ew.com/2013/12/12/disney-channel-original-movie-descendants/

Edited June 30, 2014 by Camera One

[scarynikki12]

 

she was villainous and cursed Aurora.

We don't know why she was generally villainous but she cursed Aurora to get back at the king and queen for not inviting her to the christening.  Merryweather managed to modify her curse so that the poor kid would just sleep, rather than die, but Maleficent's reasons were just petty.

 

Though, thinking about it, good magic used by an agent of good was quickly able to modify an evil curse.  The show should have just brought it Merryweather to stop Zelena instead of Regina.  At least we have precedent there.

[Camera One]

Though, thinking about it, good magic used by an agent of good was quickly able to modify an evil curse. The show should have just brought it Merryweather to stop Zelena instead of Regina. At least we have precedent there.

It was partly by luck that Merryweather was able to do anything, since the other 2 fairies had already bestowed their gifts when Maleficient showed up. Stil, it's interesting that good magic could only mitigate the bad magic, which was still more powerful. Zelena was concocting a spell, not a Curse, so the Fairies would not have been able to do anything.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Camera One

[scarynikki12]

In the world of Harry Potter curses are always spell but spells are not always curses.  Spells can be charms, jinxes, hexes, or curses but what makes them fall into the particular category is context.  Charms are positive, jinxes are mildly negative, hexes moderately negative and curses are very negative (thus there being Unforgivable Curses that earn a life sentence in Azkaban and no equivalent with the other three).  Since HP is my barometer of all things magical, I just apply those basics to shows like this one.  So I think that the show could have easily gotten away with modifying Zelena's magic if it wanted, though that would have stopped Regina's contrivance moment so it wasn't going to happen.  

[KingOfHearts]

There is a miniseries called the Tin Man. If you haven't heard of it, it's a Once-like miniseries featuring a twist on Wizard of Oz. One particular thing to note is the villain, Azkadellia, who represents the Wicked Witch of the West. She's much like Regina for the most of the series, but in the end... 

it's revealed she's Dorothy's sister. She's been possessed by an old witch the whole time, making her evil and murderous. Dorothy had been responsible for it as a child, much to her regret. The series dropped hints and led up to that, so it didn't just pop out of nowhere. I was thinking about how if Once had done that, Regina's behavior would have been less of a puzzle.

 

It's the worth the watch during hiatus. The story is very intriguing, and very Onceish. There are many twists!

Edited June 30, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

new Disney Channel movie called "Descendants", about the children of Disney villains (and protagonists) who go to a prep school together.

Weird... I stumbled upon the filming set of it today. I think I saw Maleficient's daughter, LOL.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Camera One

[Amerilla]

(I don't know this is exactly the right thread for this, but I don't want to talk about other shows in the all-seasons thread, so....I figure, close enough.)

 

I've been binge watching 'Supernatural' (thank you, Netflix) for the last month or so, and I'm midway through Season 5. Yes, I can already see therepetitionn, the continuity burps, I can already guess some of the big 'reveals,' but overall, it's become a very pleasurable nightly entertainment fix.

 

And I'm finding a lot in it that I've really been craving from OUAT. So Adam & Eddy, take note of my Top 5 "Things Supernatural Does Right That You Could Learn From:"

 

1. They take their mythology seriously. There're telling a huge story that touches on an enormous storehouse of religious and allegorical themes, along with every monster, trickster and obscure folk-figure possible. It's a massive thing to juggle, but they do it by establishing rules that govern the story and sticking to them (or, when they don't stick to them, have a good reason for it). They aren't afraid to go "big," but it (largely) works because they have a framework for it. It's not like they're throwing stuff up against a wall to see what sticks. They take their time - rather than trying to cram everything into an "arc" of predetermined length - and they do it right.

 

2.  ...But not too seriously. They stop frequently to point out how absurd the story they're telling must sound. There are moments of genuine, character-driven humor. (The darker the story, the more you need an occasional laugh.) They ground things in pop-culture references. They even poke fun at their own fandom - while making it all part of a giant, meta in-joke that doesn't make cosplayers and slash fanfic writers look like complete nincompoops.

 

3. They stop to take a breath. While the mythology of the show is always kept in the audience's mind, they balance out the heavy duty plot plot plot stuff with big breaks for stand-alone stories. By S5, these one-offs have often turned out to have a connection to the mythology that you didn't see coming, but make sense.

 

4. The fanstasical villians actually have some juice. It's not just "gloat gloat gloat gloat gloat gloat gloat dead." They do lose, eventually, but they don't go down easy, they inflict real damage, and they move the story. And they chew a minimum amout of scenery while they do it.

 

5. It's about people. Yes, it's a story about angels and demons and monsters, but really, it's a story about two brothers and the people that inhabit their lives. Even minor recurring characters are fleshed out enough that you care about what happens to them (I actually teared up a little last night when a couple secondaries were killed off.) People talk about their (gasp) feelings, even while gruffly talking about how they don't want to talk about their feelings. There's a sense that the characters live actual lives, that they eat and drink and brush their teeth and sleep and listen to music and talk with people.  Seeing them as "real" people deepens the empathy for their struggles. 

 

In the end, it's much more a story about True Love and sacrifice than anything OUAT has managed to produce.

[Dani-Ellie]

(I actually teared up a little last night when a couple secondaries were killed off.)

 

Lemme guess ... you were at "Abandon All Hope"? :)

 

They stop frequently to point out how absurd the story they're telling must sound. There are moments of genuine, character-driven humor.

 

I know this is the big reason I found season one so much more balanced. The fantasy of the fairy tale flashbacks was balanced out by the (admittedly, heightened) reality of Storybrooke. And I know that technically, Storybrooke wasn't really reality, but for the characters, it was. The Evil Queen couldn't just walk down the street and magically conjure up whatever she wanted. When she wanted to go on the offensive/get even, she had to play by this world's rules. Rumple couldn't just turn someone into a snail if they were trying to back out of a deal; he had to figure out other ways to make the deal binding. There was relationship drama and family drama and real-world conflict that couldn't just be resolved with a couple of magical flings and a spell or two.

 

I prefer my fantasy grounded in the real world. Things like season one of this show or Charmed or Supernatural, where all this crazy stuff is happening under 95% of the population's noses. Once is very quickly losing this grounding. The only real-world perspective we have now is Emma (and Henry, but Henry finds all the fantasy stuff awesome, which is funny in its own way). Emma reacts to this shit the way I would react to this shit. I adore when she's got this look on her face all, "My life has gotten so damn weird." Because it totally has, and it's totally okay for the show to acknowledge that. It's totally okay to poke fun at the absurdity.

 

I mean, some really absurd shit has happened on Supernatural but they totally play it for laughs. ("Why am I here?" "For tea parties!") And then when things do eventually get serious, it's something more human that ends up being the real threat, so that we can connect with the material.

 

As more and more of this stuff becomes commonplace to Emma, the show is going to lose that real-world grounding and its real-world ties. Mostly, I miss the real-world conflict of Storybrooke before the curse broke, when the characters had time to actually have conversations. I don't know why Adam and Eddy are so afraid to slow the hell down and let the characters breathe, because it's totally possible. As you've pointed out, Supernatural manages quite well. Moving things along at such a breakneck speed ends up with what we've got: jumping from plot point to plot point with no real emotional connection to any of it.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Dani-Ellie

[Amerilla]

Lemme guess ... you were at "Abandon All Hope"? :)

You called it. I didn't even realize how much I liked those gals until those last couple of scenes.

I mean, some really absurd shit has happened onSupernatural but they totally play it for laughs. ("Why am I here?" "For tea parties!")

My current favorite is "Last time you zapped me I didn't poop for a week. We're driving."

I don't know why Adam and Eddy are so afraid to slow the hell down and let the characters breathe, because it's totally possible

I think a large part of it is not knowing what story they want to tell. They did in S1, but they've floundered since then. Without knowing what they're trying to communicate about the big themes of life, love, family, peace, bravery... they end up communicating nothing. I know less about these characters now than I did in S1-2, I like them less, and I'm less invested in them as a result.

[Shanna Marie]

I prefer my fantasy grounded in the real world.

Funny, I was just reading this essay by Lloyd Alexander on how fantasy needs to be grounded. It should be required reading by these showrunners (along with the Evil Overlord list). The fantastic is at its most fantastic when it's grounded against reality.

[Mari]

The fantastic is at its most fantastic when it's grounded against reality.

Yes.  I have no problem reading all kinds of crazy fantasy, and no problem going full-sword and sorcery fantasy.  However, the world-building needs to include solid, consistent rules.  The characters need to behave consistently, and react to scenarios in a plausible way.

 

Once fails at this, in so very many ways. 

Edited July 18, 2014 by Mari

[Dani-Ellie]

Part of the reason I like my fantasy based in reality is because there's less suspension of disbelief. I mean, there's obviously some, but if the world is constructed properly, it gives off this sense of "maybe it could all really happen." Like with Amerilla's example of Supernatural, the show's world is constructed in a way that all this crazy, terrifying stuff is happening all the time, but thanks to hunters like Sam and Dean, most of the world will never know about it. There's this underground network of people who've been touched by real evil, and they're going around trying to combat the evil before it can harm anyone else.

 

This notion is why I like Storybrooke. It's this little town in Maine that no one can get to that houses all this fantastical stuff, and there's a sense that if you just looked hard enough, you might be able to find it. I'm not a huge fan of high fantasy but I really like that stuff.

 

For example, my favorite book of all time is Time Windows by Kathryn Reiss. It's part enchanted object story, part ghost story, and part mystery. It's a complete story told, sort of like Once, through a couple different time periods, with the two past stories impacting and informing the present story. I read it for the first time when I was 13, and there's just something magical about the story for me. It wasn't until I was older that I realized what that something was: it was the exact kind of adventure I always wanted to have as a kid. I didn't need to fall through a wardrobe into a magical land; all I needed was a little bit of magic right in my own backyard.

 

That's what speaks to me, and that's what I miss about the balancing of the two halves of Once. I feel like we're losing the reality in favor of the fantasy, and at this point, I'm invested in these characters, but at the same time, I miss the character opportunities the reality afforded them.

[daxx]

I've been binge watching 'Supernatural' (thank you, Netflix) for the last month or so, and I'm midway through Season 5.

You are just getting to the good part, my favorite season is 6. It is awesome. Don't even get me started on "The French Mistake". Omg, favorite episode!

[angelwoody]

Also, if you are loving Supernatural, you simply must find the video of Dean/ Jensen Ackles lip-synching Eye of the Tiger on YouTube.  It is hilarious and mesmerizing!

Edited July 18, 2014 by angelwoody

[daxx]

Eye of the tiger.

[Featherhat]

I personally haven't been able to make it through an entire season of Supernatural though I've tried several times over the years with different seasons. I think it has a lot of problems, although they are different problems than OUAT has. 

 

On slightly related note, I've started watching Grimm in the last couple of weeks. I'd never seen it before, even with the "OMG two fairy tale shows in one season - fight!" thing that briefly went on in the media in 2011. They're so different that they'd never have been compared if they hadn't premiered within 2 weeks of each other, though its pretty cool two shows both considered such risks using such difffernent interpretations of “fairytales in the modern world” conceit are/were both hits for their network/timeslot. 

 

However I have to say I'm up to 1.15 and its only ok for me. Part Supernatural part CSI, if it wasn't for Monroe and the evil captain I probably won't be sticking with it. I love the idea of using the original Grimm fairy tales and often prefer the "grounded in reality" versions of things but the CSI aspect of the show and Nick are pretty bland for me. I did like their version of Red Riding Hood though.  

[Amerilla]

Also, if you are loving Supernatural, you simply must find the video of Dean/ Jensen Ackles lip-synching Eye of the Tiger on YouTube.  It is hilarious and mesmerizing!

 

 

We saw that! My husband and I were just roaring with laughter. One of the best lip-synchs ever. 

 

You are just getting to the good part, my favorite season is 6. It is awesome.

 

 

Good to know. We just finished "Bloody Valentine" last night - again, a nice balance between the humorous bits and real sadness at the end. (I loved the Cupid scene. "This is their handshake." "I don't like it." "Nobody likes it.") We're trying to get through the end of 5 before we're away for a couple of weeks. At this rate, we'll have watched 1-9 before 10 premiers in the fall. (Always fun to catch up on almost a decade of shows in four months.) That said, S4 of "Lost Girl" starts streaming on the 24th, "Warehouse 13" final season should be streaming soon, and I'm still for the next season of "Haven." So there may be distractions that keep us from meeting that goal.

 

On slightly related note, I've started watching Grimm in the last couple of weeks.

 

 

Grimm is one of those shows that's gotten better over time. It took them a while to really settle into stride. They did a split season in S2, where they started in August, did a strong mid-season in October, then were off until March, and they really seemed to use that time to tighten up and find a voice. This last season, S3, was kick-ass, in large part because they began to focus more on the mythology rather than the Monster of the Week stuff. 

 

I wish I could say David Guintoli got less bland, but the character does fill out in a nice ways over time. Same with Juliet - Bitsie Tulloch's voice is never not to be annoying, but Juliet becomes a force to be reckoned with. And they begin to bring Capt Renard more into focus, which is nice for me, because I like Sasha Roiz.  

[stealinghome]

However I have to say I'm up to 1.15 and its only ok for me. Part Supernatural part CSI, if it wasn't for Monroe and the evil captain I probably won't be sticking with it. I love the idea of using the original Grimm fairy tales and often prefer the "grounded in reality" versions of things but the CSI aspect of the show and Nick are pretty bland for me. I did like their version of Red Riding Hood though.

The second half of Grimm's first season gets really, really, really good. It was appointment television for me in its back half.

 

However, I found S2 to revert back to being rather average--I ended up basically dropping it half (maybe two-thirds?) of the way through the season, and didn't really pick it back up for S3. (I understand there was studio meddling in S2 which caused some of the problems, which, fair enough, but still.) To me, even moreso than Once, it's so obvious that Grimm's creators have no clue about the show's mythology and are making it up as they go--and throwing stuff at the wall to see if it sticks. That, coupled with the show's serious problems writing for female characters, turned me off enough that I don't go out of my way to watch it anymore.

[Camera One]

I considered watching "Grimm" when "Once Upon a Time" premiered. But I didn't know whether I wanted to watch another Buffy-style monster show. I didn't like the promo where young women wearing red were being murdered. But then again, I'm not a huge fan of violent shows. It's probably going to be the type of show I will watch marathon-style on DVD once it's all over.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Camera One

[FurryFury]

I also had to stop watching Grimm after season two - it was simply horrendous, and I don't think I've seen a myth arc as badly written as the whole royals storyline. Once is genius compared to that.

As for Supernatural... I've seen the first two season ages ago (back when I actually watched TV occasionally), and while there was some good stuff, it soon became painfully obvious that the central relationship between brothers is really repetitive (i shudder to imagine how boring it must have gotten by season 10) and the less said about its treatment of women, the better (I find it hard to care about male/male relationships i general... of all the TV I've watched there was only a single one I legitimately adored and cared about, and that was Angel/Spike). And, afaik, then they went full steam with queerbating, which I personally hate with the fire of a thousand burning suns. So, no thank you to Supernatural.

[Rumsy4]

I started watching Grimm when it first aired, but it was gory and I became kinda bored. Also, its timeslot competed with Fringe, and my loyalties were with the latter. ;-)

[daxx]

I started watching Grimm when it first aired, but it was gory and I became kinda bored. Also, its timeslot competed with Fringe, and my loyalties were with the latter. ;-)

I had this same problem with Grimm, actually didn't mind the violence, obviously not a problem for me since I watch Supernatural. I found the main character bland and boring.

It Conflicted with Fringe and while looking for a new show my aunt recommended Supernatural, very strongly. I mean, she was constantly posting pics of Jensen and clips on my face book until I relented the summer after season 8 and caught up before last season. Totally hooked now.

[tennisgurl]

Even with the extremely poorly thought out "Royals" plotlines and weird world building, I still enjoy the hell out of Grimm. I like the characters, I like the interaction they have with each other. And when they go back to the "fairy tales in the modern world" thing, like the Hansel and Gretel episode, or when they do interesting mythological stuff, like the La Lorena episode, its a pretty great show. Really, its just the mythology heavy episodes that bring it down. Even this season, I liked some of the stand alone episodes (the mermaid girls, the one with the manticores), so I still say its worth checking out. Its just been disappointing how the world building ended up being handled.   

[Shanna Marie]

I'm the oddball who loves Nick on Grimm, and because he's a somewhat bland, very ordinary nice guy. One of my favorite things about the series is the fact that this boy-next-door type is the guy the monsters tell scary stories about. It never gets old when some horrifying monster creature takes one look at this unassuming, not particularly physical imposing guy and freaks out in terror. I actually think he's more subtle than bland. He's got a dry, quirky sense of humor, and he doesn't really indulge in a lot of angst. He just gets stuff done. Maybe some people see that as boring, but I find it incredibly refreshing on this kind of show.

 

The Grimm Rapunzel episode blew the Once Upon a Time Rapunzel episode out of the water.

[Amerilla]

Grimm's Rapunzel was much better, but our Rumple eats their Rumple's lunch.

[snarkastic]

Grimm's Rapunzel was much better, but our Rumple eats their Rumple's lunch.

Well, yeah, their Rumple was a one-off so he needed to be beaten. But I did think it was a cool twist with the name thing (All his aliases used the letters in Rumpelstilskin eg. Neill Trumptkiss) since OUAT just ignored that part of the character completely.

[Shanna Marie]

But I did think it was a cool twist with the name thing (All his aliases used the letters in Rumpelstilskin eg. Neill Trumptkiss) since OUAT just ignored that part of the character completely.

I also loved the modern update of the story, going from spinning straw into gold to fixing game code.

[Camera One]

Considering the success of "Tangled", I'm surprised the writers used Rapunzel in such a throwaway fashion. I guess they weren't fans of that movie? I thought they loved villains who were caregivers to children.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Camera One

[daxx]

Watching Fringe and bam! There's Zelena! Surprised.

[Rumsy4]

She was the evil minion of evil William Bell version 2.0 who trapped September in that floor-diagram, and shot him right? :-p 

[daxx]

She was the evil minion of evil William Bell version 2.0 who trapped September in that floor-diagram, and shot him right? :-p

Yeah, the woman that met the Fringe team when everyone riding the escalator overheated.

[Camera One]

I was just reading "Glinda of Oz" and I had forgotten that the Book of Records in the novel described what was currently happening in any corner of the world at that precise moment. It did not give prophesies about the future.

[Camera One]

With the Funny or Die skit with Kristen Bell, I think they could cast her as Mary Poppins, who could be the Big Bad of 5A.  It would make sense if she were Rumple's grandmother, with the creepiness factor of dropping into random children's homes and all.  

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c2deb9a5e8/mary-poppins-quits-with-kristen-bell

Edited July 25, 2014 by Camera One

[Writing Wrongs]

Into The Woods trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9i9JNp7OfM

[Camera One]

Wow, Chris Pine has really bad hair.

[SilverShadow]

The visuals are cool but I'm always annoyed when trailers for musicals are cut to try and hide the fact that it's a msuical.