OUAT vs. Other Fairy Tales: Compare & Contrast

[Mathius]

With "Descendants", I was reminded a lot of OUAT's stance on morality. The four villains' kids were NOT portrayed as misunderstood kids being mistreated solely because of their parents' reputations, but as genuinely delighting in being evil jerks, even toward those who were giving them a chance. And yet we're still supposed to feel sorry for them when they get understandably shunned and rejected, even when it's by people they've screwed with, and hate said people. Their redemption coming out of left field right after they had gone back to evildoing in response to being rejected reminded me so much of Regina in S2.

I could actually buy Cruella's son and the Evil Queen's daughter turning good, since they weren't as evil as the other two and had more sympathetic qualities (the girl clearly secretly wanted to be good and live a normal life at that school, the boy was totally misled by his mom about basic things like how dogs are and really turned around once he learned the truth), but Jafar's son and especially Maleficent's daughter were just nasty. Maleficent's daughter was pretty much Lily (I honestly just kept calling her that throughout the movie) without any true remorse or legitimate excuse for her behavior, she did things like emotionally manipulate an innocent socially awkward girl for her own benefit and magically roofie a guy into falling in love with her, and she did it with glee. But she cries prettily, so all is forgiven!

Edited August 1, 2015 by Mathius

[YaddaYadda]

Ok, so I will not be watching this then.

[Dianthus]

One of the reasons I enjoyed Interview with the Vampire (1976) so much was it depiction of vampires as other than just monsters/mindless killers. Good Omens is also a favorite, featuring an angel who didn't so much 'fall' as saunter vaguely downward. Even Hook's desire for revenge against the Crocodile who maimed him and killed his love is far more understandable than Regina's quest for vengeance against an innocent child. Writers keep trying for the sympathetic villain, but it's tricky.

Edited August 2, 2015 by Dianthus

[OnceUponAJen]

Darth Vader worked as a good sympathetic villain for me, but only at the end when he was remorseful and sorry for what he'd done. I think you have to have believable remorse from the villain in question, and they have to take steps to repair the damage they've done. If they just act like entitled jerks who "deserve" their happy ending, I can't buy into it. I like the Evil Queen in OUAT, and I also liked S1 Regina as the villain. I haven't really been able to buy into her redemption like I have Hook's. He is actually doing the hard work to try to be the better man.

[Panopticon]

LOL, I actually found that Descendants increased my appreciation for OUAT. OUAT, if not over-analyzed, might annoy me every so often. Descendants, even watching with the lowest of expectations and the most casual attitude, had me in "what the what?" mode from the opening credits.

 

Why is the king abdicating in favor a of a 16-year old? Wouldn't that cause a problem with all the other royals who have a claim to the throne but agreed to let the king formerly known as the Beast-- not his flaky teenager-- be in charge? And if everyone in villain-land is a big bad villain or a descendant thereof, why is there a terrified baby for Lily to steal candy from? Doesn't that baby have an evil parent or grandparent who would come after Lily?

 

Plus, I have faith that if OUAT ever did a musical episode, the lip syncing wouldn't be quite that bad.

 

(The exception obviously being Kristin Chenoweth singing Evil Like Me, which was kind of great. I do wish the occasional OUAT villain would brag about being finger-licking evil to the bone rather than explaining how it's not his/her fault because bad childhood. For anyone who would like to see that and skip the rest of the film, look here:

.)

 

I did get OUAT flashbacks when Aurora's daughter snarked at Lily because Maleficent had put her mother under a sleeping curse, and Lily snarked back about Aurora's grandparents not inviting her family to the party, as if the two sins were equal. That was very OUAT logic.

[SilverShadow]

Disney also posted the first six minutes of the movie, including the villain kids' opening number (starting at 3:18):

 

https://youtu.be/1Zm9D1tXWVs

Edited August 3, 2015 by SilverShadow

[Camera One]

I PVR'd it so I'll watch it eventually.  Those first six minutes were... let's just say I wanted to see Snow White throw the whole lot down a portal.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

I lost all interest after they opened with an iPad e-book. Juxtaposing modern culture against fairy tales is fine, but don't fuse them together so much that it ruins the traditional charm.

Edited August 3, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[Shanna Marie]

Speaking of the villain victimizing, hero blaming, and other "deconstruction" of fairy tales and their themes, I found this essay in a link rabbit trail (I'm not even sure how it started) that has some interesting things to say about philosophy, deconstruction and fairy tales in regard to the recent live-action Cinderella.

[MedievalGirl]

My daughters and I watched Descendants. I liked the costumes. I like the prince's Elvis inspired number, and I even liked what they did with Be Our Guest. The set up kind of makes sense until you see all the other kids the evil kids are harassing. Those are the ones that need off the Island. Most of the best bits were in the ads this summer. Clearly there is a set up for a sequel and there was an ad for Descendants animated shorts. 

I want to play hurley with shields and a ball cannon. That looked fun. 

[Camera One]

"Descendants" was beyond campy.  There were a couple of laughs and callbacks to the animated movies, but most of the laughs were in the vein of this-is-so-dumb-it's-almost-funny.

 

(Warning, spoilers below)

 

The characterization was all over the place and the usual stilted morality was on full display, as Mathius said.  Of course Aurora's daughter is a bitchy mean-girl (reminiscent of Eva), Cinderella's son is a total sleazy vindictive jock, Mulan's daughter is superficial and an airhead and the Fairy Godmother's daughter is gullible and pathetic.  It's interesting how Disney cared so much about preserving Elsa and Anna's characterizations, yet it's fair game to make all the other heroes look bad.  So we should feel bad for the villains' children because they didn't have good parents.  But the kids with good parents turned out to be shallow, dense and/or mean and arrogant?

 

The main character, Belle and the Beast's son, was super earnest but just too dumb to live.  "I can look into your eyes and I can tell you're not evil."   I know you drugged me but I still love you.  Sometimes, I had an uncomfortable feeling that it was just his hormones talking.  Why is this 16-year-old dumbass being crowned King?   He was clearly a direct descendant of "Once Upon a Time"'s Belle.  The Beast clearly didn't think he was up for being King.  Though trapping the villains and their children on an island living in squalor is pretty sketchy if you think about it too deeply.

 

Aside from Whiny Lily, uh, I mean Mal, the other three villains' children were thinly and quizzically drawn.  I really couldn't figure out what their mindsets were since they wavered randomly.  Sometimes, they were supposedly "rotten to the core", sometimes, they were afraid of their parents, and sometimes, they liked being at the school.  Why was Jafar and his son so obsessed with stealing?  Did they turn into Aladdin and Abu?   Why would The Evil Queen's daughter be really good at sewing and cleaning?  Cruella's son was just there.  It just made no sense.  

 

Now, we could see the endless "turmoil" within Mal through the ultra abrupt moments when she stepped behind a pillar and broke into song.  Her character journey was as coherent as a roller coaster.  Why didn't someone talk to her about using her dark magic spellbook?  Oh right, all the good guys are dumb as hell.

 

One part I liked was when Aurora's mother verbally attacked Mal for her mother depriving her of raising Aurora.  That was the only time the villains' true atrocities were taken seriously.  At the very least, something like that should have happened with Maleficent in 4B, but of course on "Once", Maleficent is the victim.   The other adult villains (with the exception of Jafar) were mildly entertaining but were basically just bumbling fools.  

Edited August 4, 2015 by Camera One

[Camera One]

Disney has a prequel novel for "Descendants":

http://movies.disney.com/descendants/the-isle-of-the-lost

[MDKNIGHT]

Not that I thought Descendants was great but I'll defend a couple of things.  Mal and the other 3 who are obviously her henchmen start out singing "Rotten to the Core"  (which BTW I think is kind of catchy and could have charted if it had been sung by Lady Gaga)  and say they are evil and that they enjoy it at the beginning of the picture.  BUT  they've been raised by villains with the villains' values so at that point they have nothing to compare it to.  There is even a point where Malificent tells her daughter the same thing Cora told Regina in OUAT...Love is weakness.  So their POV is their parents' POV at the beginning of the movie.

 

The story (such as it is) is about the journey the young wannabe villains undertake to the point where they can decide what they WANT to do and not what they've been told they HAVE to do because they are children of villains.  For instance the Evil Queen tells Evie she expects her to come back with a rich husband who will support Evie and Evil Queen and almost every time Evie speaks she's telling Mal about how important the EQ thinks superficial looks are.  As it turns out Evie is actually smart and could probably support HERSELF when she finishes school, instead of marrying for the money as she's expect to.  Though terribly edited the ending is supposed to indicate that the 4 main characters DECIDE to be "good" because they found through trial and error that they prefer it to being bad.  While overly simplistic it at least was fairly straight forward as opposed to the completely unbelievable morality inconsistencies shown in OUAT.

 

Furthermore while I welcomed Aurora's grandma pointing out MALIFISCENT'S evil i.e. stealing her ability to see her child grow up because of the curse, it was also correct of other characters to point out that she really shouldn't blame Mal, who wasn't even born then, for her mother's actions.  So overall I would give Descendants more points for moral consistency than OUAT. 

Edited August 7, 2015 by MDKNIGHT

[Camera One]

For instance the Evil Queen tells Evie she expects her to come back with a rich husband who will support Evie and Evil Queen and almost every time Evie speaks she's telling Mal about how important the EQ thinks superficial looks are.  As it turns out Evie is actually smart and could probably support HERSELF when she finishes school, instead of marrying for the money as she's expect to.

 

Yes, I actually think Evie's transformation was better handled than even Mal (the boys got practically zero development).  I find it hard to believe The Evil Queen encouraged Evie sew her own clothes and clean, though, since that would be beneath her from the animated Evil Queen's perspective.  But then again, the Evil Queen was a total weakling in this movie.  

 

I wish they had shown more scenes with the teens and their villainous parents before they left the Island, but clearly, they wanted the focus to be on the teens themselves.  But I do think that required a little more basic grounding of their situation so the viewer didn't have to guess in hindsight.

 

 

 

Furthermore while I welcomed Aurora's grandma pointing out MALIFISCENT'S evil i.e. stealing her ability to see her child grow up because of the curse, it was also correct of other characters to point out that she really shouldn't blame Mal, who wasn't even born then, for her mother's actions.  So overall I would give Descendants more points for moral consistency than OUAT.

 

No, she shouldn't have blamed Mal for her mother's actions.  But it's natural that she would still be angry at the villains' actions, so that is what I liked about it, and a refreshing difference from "Once".

 

The "Evil Like Me" song has really grown on me.  Maleficent hamming it up was quite hilarious.  It's interesting they had different composers write the various songs, and so the Maleficent song was the only one which sounded more Broadway-ish.  I really disliked the other tunes.  Disney has put all of them up on Youtube, if people who didn't watch the movie wants to see what they did to "Be Our Guest".

Edited August 7, 2015 by Camera One

[MDKNIGHT]

"Yes, I actually think Evie's transformation was better handled than even Mal (the boys got practically zero development).  I find it hard to believe The Evil Queen encouraged Evie sew her own clothes and clean, though, since that would be beneath her from the animated Evil Queen's perspective.  But then again, the Evil Queen was a total weakling in this movie."

 

I fanwanked that since Evil Queen seemed to be a hangers-on to Malifiscent and not have her OWN power base, she didn't have servants any more, so while on the one hand she groomed Evie to be a gold digger, she on the other hand got Evie to do the cleaning and sowing for her.  It also made sense to me that Evie's face lit up when she saw the dorm room since her mom probably told her stories of her luxurious castle while she had to grow up in squalor. 

Edited August 8, 2015 by MDKNIGHT

[Camera One]

That would make sense since from what I could tell, Cruella and Jafar treated their kids as servants.  It's another reason I wanted to see more of their life on the Island.  

 

The Evil Queen, Jafar and Cruella seemed like they couldn't care less if Maleficent's plan succeeded or not.  I'd say in the Aladdin movie, Jafar was just as evil as Maleficent.  They should have picked an actor with a longer face.  

[MDKNIGHT]

"The Evil Queen, Jafar and Cruella seemed like they couldn't care less if Maleficent's plan succeeded or not."

 

Not only do I think the villains used their kids as servants, I think the villains fostered the idea in them that their ONLY allegiance should be to them (their parent).  It is their villains' narcissism at work.  Notice that when Maleficent tells the 4 they are going to the good school one of them asks what's in it for them and Maleficent tells Mal "hers and hers thrones" etc and she says that the other kid meant what was in it for the FOUR of them not JUST for Mal , and Maleficent pulls her aside and straight up tells her that only she (Maleficent) and Mal matter.  One of the  stanzas in the Rotten to the Core song is about NOT expecting one of them to have your back.  Mal is kind of surprised that Evei is helping her with clothes and makeup when there isn't something directly in it for her, like a sister might. Jafar's kid makes sure Cruella's son gets to play on the team when he could have just been a glory hog.  And in the end Malifescent is defeated because the 4 pull together.  Part of what they learn is that pure selfishness is not going to get you as far as true loyalty.  The villains group together but AREN'T really loyal to each other. That is part of their weakness.  

[Camera One]

I finished reading "The Crystal Cave", the first book in the Merlin trilogy by Mary Stewart.

 

Overall, I did find the book engaging.  

However, I did find it a tad depressing. It was an interesting approach to make the story more historical and play down the magical elements, though I was a little disappointed not to see Merlin doing wizard-y things. It was too sad that the author basically killed off every friend and/or parental figure he had. Sometimes, it was a little anticlimatic. We never got to see him confront his uncle, who died offscreen, and he wasn't there for the death of his father or his mother. Sometimes, I wish Merlin could act rather than just react... his visions just came whenever, and it was out of his control. It was a bit much to have him play a role in the conception of Arthur.  This book reminded me a little of "Pillars of the Earth", which was a huge downer as well, though with some interesting historical details.

 

I am glad I read it... the book I borrowed has all three novels in it, so it is super thick.  I think I'll read the next book and return "Sword in the Stone".  I watched the animated movie too recently, so I couldn't get into the book.  At least with the Mary Stewart series, it's from a different character's perspective.

[Dianthus]

I made a joking reference to The Court Jester w/ Danny Kaye over on the spoiler thread, and it got me thinking. Kaye had a couple of other fairy-tale themed movies to his credit. He starred in the bio-pic Hans Christian Andersen and The Inspector General. I used to love his movies as a kid.

[HoodlumSheep]

https://twitter.com/disneystudios/status/632236866272555008

Teaser posters for the new Alice in Wonderland movie.

I really like these. The first Alice movie was rather...average, so it'll be interesting to see how closely they'll follow the "Through the Looking Glass". Although I liked Ouat in Wonderland and what Once did with it better than the Tim Burton movie and the original Disney movie (I was just never very fond of it).

Sorry if this sounds messy and frantic; my twitter feed is beginning to blow up with all the D23 Expo stuff.

Disney announced a new 'Jack and the Beanstalk' animated film called 'Gigantic.'

https://twitter.com/disneyanimation/status/632328940548325376

Everytime I see concept pictures of future Disney animated flicks (like Moana), I get so bummed that they're not gonna be 2-D. The art is sooooo gorgeous, and it's like, why??? Why must you make it 3-D???

Edited August 15, 2015 by HoodlumSheep

[Faemonic]

I caught up on the first season of Penny Dreadful. Okay, so I wondered if all the "argh, worldbuilding" stuff that I spout was because it's much easier to worldbuild in prose than in television writing. Fantasy shows need to build worlds, unless you really mean to just make it surrealist. Maybe the Dresden Files spoiled me, what with Bob the Skull lecturing about the six or seven different kinds of werewolves (human-shaped people who think they're wolves, wolf-shaped wolves who think they're people, people who can change their shape into wolves at will, people who can only change into wolves with a specific magic item, something something demon, something something full moon, something something curse,) and me wondering how all this is going to be important if they're only looking for the one.

 

Penny Dreadful (haven't caught up with the second season) made it pretty clear and believable that Amun-Ra was Dracula and also Satan.

 

Also, this line: "It is more (suffering) than I deserve, but I cannot forgive myself."

 

That line was uttered by the adventuring party's oracle. After seducing her best friend's fiance, the character of Vanessa was demonically possessed, sent to Victorian asylum, given baths of ice water and some surgery that involved a corkscrew to the skull as treatments, and then her mother walked in on her confrontation with Satan and died of fright.

 

And I was like, "That's what Vanessa did?" Totally broke the lady bro code, yes, but the way everybody else was going on about the terrible thing that cannot be forgiven, I thought that Vanessa had caused some fatalities to open the gate to Hell. Even if it were the Victorian era, I expected something slightly more serious.

 

Yeah, we get a flashback about what messed Vanessa up so that she eventually grew up to be the sort of person who breaks the lady bro code, but it's a statement of fact and reminiscence rather than an excuse. If anything, her bland tone in recounting the event might have a hint of, "I should have known better than to give into all those petty envies and abandonment and possessiveness issues..."

 

And she's not sucking up to her demon-possessed best friend either, just because she had done her best friend that much wrong. Her best friend is demon-possessed, and, as Vanessa writes to her, "I love you enough to kill you." Not to succumb to some belabored guilt trip.

 

Avoided both the Villain's Victimization and the Villified Hero double standard that OUaT has, and managed to build a world that can hold a crossover between Frankenstein, Dracula, and The Picture of Dorian Gray.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Faemonic

[tennisgurl]

Penny Dreadful is so many kinds of awesome. To me, its the best Urban Fantasy on TV right now. 

[Spartan Girl]

For everyone that's sick of Belle and Rumple on OUAT, hopefully Emma Watson and Dan Stevens will give us back the Beauty and the Beast we know and adore in the upcoming live action movie...

[Camera One]

I have liked both of them in previous roles, but they look too different in age.  I'm not a huge fan of romances where the female looks so much younger.

[Mari]

So Penny Dreadful is worth watching?

 

Can I ask how much gratuitous gore and nudity?  (I have a fairly low gore tolerance.  I don't care if people are occasionally naked, especially if there's a decent story-driven reason, but I don't enjoy watching people have sex just so that the show can check off their "soft-core porn" box for the episode.)

 

Also, I realize it's not a fluffy-bunnies and sparkly dancing unicorns kind of show, but is it hopeless and are the people stupid?  I gave up the Walking Dead because it seemed hopeless and the people were usually so unrelentingly dumb I started to hope the zombies ate them.

 

Sorry for the questions--but this group usually has decent judgement, and I don't have Showtime, I'd have to buy the show.  As interesting as I've found the little tidbits I've seen, I haven't taken the plunge because I was afraid I'd buy it and be crushed when I discovered it was incredibly dumb people that I was expected to watch in torture porn and sex scenes while I slowly started hoping they'd get eaten by a rampaging dinosaur.

[Amerilla]

Mari - PD does have a measure of sex and blood, especially in S2. You do see ALL of Eva Green and Billie Piper, and there is some full-frontal male nudity in S2. They use the freedom of cable, but not in a way I found gratuitous. But overall, it's very much a character-driven show with some fantastic acting and dialog.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Amerilla

[Mari]

Thanks, Amerilla!

 

I can live with some nudity and some violence--it's not the character getting naked I object to, it's when the characters get naked just so that the show can fill their self-imposed quota of naked people.  

[tennisgurl]

Mari,

 

I would recommend giving the show a look. Like Amerilla said, there is sex and gore, but it is all pretty relevant, either to the plot or the characters. The characters are usually pretty savey, and are definitely interesting and multidimensional. Its very much an ensemble show and a character study, underneath all the heavy style and the amazing cinematography and costumes.

 

Also, while it is a very dark show, there are real sparks of love, friendship, warmth, and humor. Its grim, but I would say its a lot less grim than the average episode of Walking Dead. There is some hope in between all the dark Victorian era angst. It helps that the characters are likable, and they aren't idiots.  

[Amerilla]

And I was like, "That's what Vanessa did?" Totally broke the lady bro code, yes, but the way everybody else was going on about the terrible thing that cannot be forgiven, I thought that Vanessa had caused some fatalities to open the gate to Hell. Even if it were the Victorian era, I expected something slightly more serious.

 

See, I totally bought it. As a Victorian and a Catholic, she crossed lines that women were not supposed to cross. The implication was that by opening her legs, she opened her soul to darkness. She couldn't walk back from it, she couldn't fix it. She didn't even save Mina - by changing the trajectory of Mina's life, she put her in a position to be taken by the vampire later on. 

 

Vanessa is how you do a "descent to darkness" story. There's no silly, retconned "eggnapping," there's just this woman who is either very troubled or demonically possessed or both. You're never quite sure where it comes from - is it something within her or something that attached itself to her. Her attempts to embrace it or shove it away all have a real sense of consequence. 

 

Also, while it is a very dark show, there are real sparks of love, friendship, warmth, and humor.

 

And it's so un-forced. It comes from the characters living through experiences together or finding commonalities or dealing with their crap and getting past it. While fighting monsters and vampires and witches.

 

It really shows what Once could do with relationships if they tried. But they're adamant about skipping over the good and meaningful part of building relationships.

 

Oh, Faemonic, I hope you watch the second season. They really build on the source of Vanessa's darkness, and I'd be interested in hearing how you think it works. I'm still sorting out how I feel about it. 

[Faemonic]

So Penny Dreadful is worth watching?

 

Decent worldbuilding, creative spins on canon material, shout-outs...I liked it when I liked it. Not much gore, although Frankenstein's monster does an Alien parasite chest-bursting thing and also snaps a few necks, and personally baths of ice water as a psychiatric treatment are wince-worthy to me without being gory. Yes to gratuitous sex. So much sex that's just there for no real reason. The show generally sorta kinda ties up at the end, I guess. Another tiny thing I appreciated was how much clarity they all had about colonialism, what with the demon-possessed Vanessa calling out Sir Malcolm on his dalliances (ahem, rapes) of indigenous people whilst he was exploring Africa, and the cowboy's angst about the disenfranchisement of First Nation people. That's all conversational, though.

 

It wasn't gasp-Peter-Pettigrew-was-Ron's-pet-rat-all-this-time kind of mindblowing, but it was clever (except for one or two features that felt like plot holes, I explain it away by thinking that Dracula-Satan is basically Chaotic Evil aligned.) The heart that was in it wasn't something I'd hug my television set over, but the characters were decently developed.

 

I've heard that they all kind of lose their brains in season two, but I haven't caught up with that.

[HoodlumSheep]

Watched Brave tonight on abc family.

I'll stand by what I said earlier about how the mother/daughter bond was the strongest part of the film.

It's had me thinking about what else Once may use from the film, like characters and stuff. I wonder if we'll see Merida's parents. In Brave the mom mentions how Merida's dad doesn't believe in magic, although that's a rather small detail.

Also, the mother/daughter bond aspect could be used for Emma/Snow...but'll probably end up being used on Snow and Regina for whatever reason if A&E decided to show mother/daughter parallels.

Also, concerning the will-o'-the-wisps, I was reading up on them from Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will-o%27-the-wisp

While someone a while back mentioned they imagined the blue fairy acting as the will-o-the-wisp, I think Rumple could be a better fit if they wanted him to double as another character. I particularly like the section about Will the Smith. It talks about how Saint Peter offered him a second chance at the gates of Heaven, but he was doomed to lead a miserable life wandering around the earth. The devil gave him a piece of burning coal to warm himself, which he uses to lure people into the marshes.

Saint Peter could be represented by the Blue Fairy or Young Baelfire (i know, I know, it's hard to picture). Rumple's second chance (kind of) could have been going with Baelfire into the portal to the world without magic (which he didn't do). Thus, he was basically doomed to a lonely life, wandering around. The Devil could be the Dark One (or Zoso) and the burning coal could be the dagger (even though he had those powers before his "second chance"). He uses the dagger/DO powers to lure people (okay, they just sort of flock to him) into making deals with him.

...And I just put way to much thought into this.

I am very curious to see how much we see Brave being incorporated into the story compared to Camelot.

Edited August 17, 2015 by HoodlumSheep

[Selina K]

I'm not sure this is the best place for this, but I'm not sure where else it would go.  I was reading an (spoiler-y for Game of Thrones) EW.com interview with Damon Lindelof (Lost) about the Game of thrones show and his thoughts and why he watches TV.  He gave this snippet:

 

 

Are there storylines that I am more invested in than others? Of course. That’s always going to be the case when six or seven different things are happening at any one time. But as a storyteller, if you can make one, let alone two, excellent hours of television a season if you’re doing eight or 10 episodes—an excellent episode by all accounts—I think what people don’t realize is that in order to produce those excellent episodes, there have to be episodes that set that up. There also have to be episodes that begin to—although this is never a storyteller’s intent—make [the viewer] go, “I don’t know, I don’t know about this…” That makes those excellent episodes all the more special. And when I was watching [episode 8] “Hardhome” this season, I was just like, “That’s one of the most excellent hours of television I’ve ever seen.” It’s excellent for different reasons than “The Suitcase” episode of Mad Men is excellent, but it’s just amazing. I just sat there with my mouth hanging open.

 

I really loved this thought.  I think this explains so much of why I watch Once, even though it is no GoT so it's a different bar in some ways.  For every (for me) cringingly awful Regina scene, there is an episode, or even just several scenes per season or half season typically, where I am just wrung out from the fun or feels or just enjoyment of the experience.  That's typically a Captain Swan moment from my perspective, but those flashes of fantastic TV keep me engaged.  

[KingOfHearts]

 

I really loved this thought.  I think this explains so much of why I watch Once, even though it is no GoT so it's a different bar in some ways.  For every (for me) cringingly awful Regina scene, there is an episode, or even just several scenes per season or half season typically, where I am just wrung out from the fun or feels or just enjoyment of the experience.  That's typically a Captain Swan moment from my perspective, but those flashes of fantastic TV keep me engaged.

Yeah, I think that's what keeps most of us watching. For the hours of absolute crap, there's that small scene that's simply perfect no one, including the writers, expected. There's those small precious moments that aren't under A&E's Boredom Detection Radar. We didn't expect Ursula's story with Hook, or Belle's town line scene, or Regina's apology to Geppetto. Those are the kind of scenes we keep hunting for. For the boatloads of disappointment we get, we don't quit watching because there's always some sort of nugget of hope.

 

Lost did this sort of thing a lot. There's just some points in the story where you have to go through a lot of boring and stupid writing to get to the moments you treasure. Fire + Water, The Glass Ballerina and Stranger in a Strange Land were all bad episodes you had to get past. But there were others that weren't too bad that primarily acted as setup, usually making the tail end of the season really epic. I can tell Once tries to do this desperately with the gobs of setup it attempts to plant over several episodes, but the climaxes are almost never satisfying. While Lost had little moments and good big moments, Once is pretty much stuck with unintended gems.

Edited August 19, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

I agree.  Even in the depths of 4B, there were some moments which were fun, or emotionally affecting or sparked the imagination, even if it was just the visual of seeing a favorite fairy tale character in a certain backdrop, or even seeing a neglected character for a minute or hearing them say a few lines.  That's what keeps me excited about Season 5 even though I know what A&E's biases are going to be.  Yes, for Regina, CS and Rumple fans, there's going to be rewards and a whole lot of squeeing, but for the rest of us, it's actually the little moments in between that are most enjoyable.  I've had that with some shows in the past in the latter seasons ("Lost" included) where the supporting characters got me through.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Camera One

[YaddaYadda]

I've had that with some shows in the past in the latter seasons ("Lost" included) where the supporting characters got me through.

 

The best part about Lost was the supporting characters.  I gave no fucks about Jack, Sawyer and Kate. I hated all 3 and the triangle from hell.  But the supporting characters like Rose and Bernard for instance, I loved.

[Rumsy4]

Right from the beginning I loved the supporting characters in LOST the best--Hurley, Sayid, Desmond, Rose, Bernard, etc.. I disliked Jack and found Kate blah until about Season 5. 

[Camera One]

For me, shows I fall in love with from the beginning like "Lost", I like everyone.  I usually have a soft spot for supporting, minor and guest characters, but I can only enjoy a show fully if I enjoy all the main original characters in various capacities and don't hate or feel ambivalence towards any of them.  And that's still the case even now with "Once", or I would have drifted away long ago.

[YaddaYadda]

Since Arthur is going to be part of Once this season...I just realized that JK Rowling borrowed some stuff from the Arthurian legends there.  I can't believe I didn't see it before.

 

*hangs head in shame*

[Writing Wrongs]

Anyone like First Knight? I used to love it (Sean Connery was still hot), but having tried to re-watch it recently it's not that great. Richard Gere's Lancelot is ridiculous and I'm not sure why they made Arthur so old.

[YaddaYadda]

Richard Gere's Lancelot is ridiculous and I'm not sure why they made Arthur so old.

 

I've never seen the movie (I actually checked yesterday if it was on Netflix and it's not), but I can answer the question.  They made Arthur old so that people would automatically root for Mary Sue and that faithless harpy to be together.

[Rumsy4]

First Knight was ridiculous. I loved the 1981 Excalibur. It's been a long time since I saw either movie though. I might rewatch Excalibur.

[OnceUponAJen]

Excalibur is a good movie! I've never seen First Knight.

[HoodlumSheep]

I don't know if this article was posted here before,

but this article lists 10 movies about King Arthur.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/10610096/The-10-best-films-about-King-Arthur.html

Not gonna lie, the way some of these movies are described (fake plastic geese, lots of extremely fake blood, etc) makes me really want to watch them. They sound entertaining.

First Knight, Excalibur are on the list.

I'm sad because the only movie from the list that's on Netflix is King Arthur (2004).

I guess I'll watch it at some point.

Edited August 21, 2015 by HoodlumSheep

[Serena]

I know I should be embarassed to admit it, but my absolute favourite Arthurian book is Meg Cabot's "Avalon High". I haven't re-read it in years, but I remember just loving it when I did. The Disney adaptation enraged me, and I'm usually pretty chill about adaptations changing stuff.

[HoodlumSheep]

^ i remember watching Avalon High on the Disney Channel! It wasn't very good. It was actually one of the worst DCOMs I've ever watched (and that's saying something because I normally love/like all of them; the cheesiness makes me smile).

I've never read the book though.

[Writing Wrongs]

I watched Disney's Sword in the Stone recently and didn't really care for it. I know it's a kids' movie, but I hated how goofy Merlin was.

[HoodlumSheep]

^ It's been so long since I've seen that movie. It would be fun to see Madam Mim on Once, but that's obviously not the direction they are going.

[Camera One]

I watched it for the first time last month (I posted a review a few pages back).  I agree he was goofy but I didn't mind it too much (maybe my expectations were just really low).  Though I wish he had wised up more often and imparted some real lessons though.  I'm currently reading the Merlin trilogy and it is interesting to read a more quasi-historical take on the character.  Either way, "Once" is likely to throw everything out the window anyway.  I really want him to be an old bearded wizard on "Once" but I have my doubts.  Plus they have already ruined the character since he is the same as The Sorcerer.  A&E are never interested in wise sage characters anyway.  They always end up being useless or stupid.  I'm sure Merlin will be no exception.

 

I want to see Madam Mim too.  Though knowing this show, she'll probably be Zelena.

[Faemonic]

I know I should be embarassed to admit it, but my absolute favourite Arthurian book is Meg Cabot's "Avalon High". I haven't re-read it in years, but I remember just loving it when I did. The Disney adaptation enraged me, and I'm usually pretty chill about adaptations changing stuff.

 

^ i remember watching Avalon High on the Disney Channel! It wasn't very good. It was actually one of the worst DCOMs I've ever watched (and that's saying something because I normally love/like all of them; the cheesiness makes me smile).

I've never read the book though.

 

As an Arthuriana nerd, I thought the book was good. I don't mind high school adaptations of classics, because it's one thing to tell teenagers, "This Great Work of Literature is a classic because it is relevant to the human condition even in modern times!" It's another thing entirely to prove it by showing how the same story could actually play out in high school.

 

And from what I remember, although this might just be Nostalgia Goggles, there was this secret Order of the Bear that observed the Arthurian plot playing out in every generation (due to reincarnation) and would try to track it down and watch what happened. The tragedy was that the Mordred reincarnation was growing into his character too soon, when they were all still in high school, and the King Arthur reincarnation would have been defeated without even doing any good to the world yet because he was in high school. I thought that was an interesting bit of perspective.

 

But the movie made it out like Arthur's football game was the most important cosmic event ever (that was not in the book), and the twist on the twist, that the main character herself was a reincarnation of somebody in the Arthurian story pattern, made sense in the book but not in the movie because they changed the character that Elaine was a reincarnation of but they didn't change much else in the movie's story that would make it make sense aaargh...

Edited August 21, 2015 by Faemonic

[YaddaYadda]

The Clive Owen movie, King Arthur is horrible.  It made me wanna cry is was so bad.  I remember looking forward to Camelot, the TV series.  That one enraged me. I hated everything about it and was happy as a clam when they cancelled it.