OUAT vs. Other Fairy Tales: Compare & Contrast

[pezgirl7]

I've been waiting since last year for that Beauty and the Beast trailer, because of Luke Evans, and found it super disappointing. It barely showed anything! Definitely a teaser in the truest sense of the word. I almost felt like I was just watching a commercial for OUAT, except with better CGI. I'm just super curious to see how all the actors will look, and how they'll handle the servants. I'm assuming they'll all need to be done with CGI, which is why they didn't have much they could show in the trailer.

[Rumsy4]

The Eggnapping stunt A&E pushed on Snowing was nothing to what Marvel has done to Captain America, huh? 

[Curio]

(Out of the loop...) What exactly did Marvel do to Captain America?

[Rumsy4]

Apparently in the newest comic,

Spoiler

Captain America was revealed to have been a double agent for the terrorist organization Hydra all along.

[daxx]

Honestly I feel like crying about it. How do they fix this? Other than just plain retracting it...

[Rumsy4]

Maybe it'll end up being a fever dream nightmare. 

Edited May 26, 2016 by Rumsy4

[Curio]

Thanks, @Rumsy4. I'm not well-versed in the Marvel comics, but I do try to keep up with the movies, and the latest Civil War movie actually makes me believe that scenario was foreshadowed a little bit. (Or maybe I'm just reading into some scenes too much.) I don't know if it was Marvel's intention for me to walk away from a Captain America-centric movie feeling more empathy for Tony than I did for Steve, but that's what happened.

Attempting to tie this back to OUAT...it would be kind of interesting if this show did its own Civil War plot. There's plenty of magical users who aren't abiding by any laws (because there are none) and they're putting innocent non-magical people in danger. Sounds a lot like Civil War's plot. So Emma could be the Tony of the situation and side with wanting to implement magical laws to protect people while Rumple and Regina are the Captain America and Bucky who are adamantly against any rules or laws being implemented. Hmm, maybe this is why I was so #TeamTony...

[tennisgurl]

On 5/17/2016 at 6:42 PM, OnceUponAJen said:

Honestly I feel like crying about it. How do they fix this? Other than just plain retracting it...

I honestly felt ill when I heard about this. I have been out of the comic loop for quite awhile (too many retcons and too many attempts at making the comics line up with the MCU), but now I am thrilled I have not given Marvel any money in quite some time. I have been reading reactions to this, and NO ONE wants this. I have never seen this many fans this pissed off. What the hell are they smoking over at Marvel? This makes some of A&Es retcons and character assignations look like Breaking Bad. They have to make change this, or retcon it, or something. No way is this going to stick.  

[RadioGirl27]

Joe Simon and Jack Kirby, the creators of Captain America were both jews and they created this comic in 1941, during World War II, during the Holocaust. They created him because they were repulsed by the actions of the Nazis. This twist is an insult to their memories.

By the way, this is the first number of Captain America

 

[KingOfHearts]

On 5/25/2016 at 2:23 PM, pezgirl7 said:

I've been waiting since last year for that Beauty and the Beast trailer, because of Luke Evans, and found it super disappointing. It barely showed anything! Definitely a teaser in the truest sense of the word. I almost felt like I was just watching a commercial for OUAT, except with better CGI. I'm just super curious to see how all the actors will look, and how they'll handle the servants. I'm assuming they'll all need to be done with CGI, which is why they didn't have much they could show in the trailer.

Today I found out the teaser is actually a shot-by-shot remake of the teaser for the 1991 movie. There's a comparison video out there right now that juxtaposes the two.

[Camera One]

There are now some fake side-by-side videos out there, where the "old" trailer has been changed to be more identical to the new one.  Don't know where some people get the time...

[Shanna Marie]

I'm trying to watch Pan on HBO on demand, and wow, but it's bad. There's some amazing imagery, but the story makes next to no sense, and it's kind of boring. I definitely prefer our Hook. Mostly, all the images of the flying pirate ship make me wish they could find another Pegasus sail and have some more flying pirate ship adventures on Once Upon a Time.

[Camera One]

I watched the trailer and it seemed like a whole bunch of overacting.  I had to laugh when I heard "the prophesy about a boy...".  

[daxx]

Watching Sherlock for the first time. I so wish they would write conversations for the characters on OUAT and watching these characters develop over a course of a few episodes just makes me want it more.

[Mathius]

Wow.  The sequel to Burton's Alice in Wonderland gave the Queen of Hearts/Red Queen the Regina treatment.  Like, exactly.  

Spoiler

In the first movie, she's an oppressive monarch who killed a lot of people and even had villages torched.  In this one?  She's just a sad misunderstood woobie and it's all the fault of those mean heroes (aka her victims) that she was evil and they even have to apologize to her in the end even though she almost destroys the world. 

The White Queen may as well have said "I was such a brat!" at the end there.

Edited May 29, 2016 by Mathius

[Dianthus]

Thanks, Mathius. I never actually saw Burton's AiW, but now I know not to bother with the sequel. Regina getting the Regina treatment has already made me throw up in my mouth a bit multiple times.

[Writing Wrongs]

I liked that they give them a backstory. But yeah, it was blaming a child for acting like a child that we've seen before.

[Camera One]

9 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

I accidentally read a few major spoilers for Lost and I never forgave myself. With Once, I tend to speculate better storylines than what we get. Then I end up being disappointed because it's a lot lamer than what I hoped for. Lost, on the other hand, usually delivered when it came to unexpected twists and turns. I was surprised by new developments many times over the course of the series. (I watched it all on Netflix.)

I was spoiler and promo-free for the full run of "Lost" as well.  Having the week in between episodes allowed for really good discussions, like the ones we have about "Once" here.

More about "Lost" (don't read if you haven't seen it) and the difference with this show:  I appreciated that when "Lost" had a new twist, they went forward and explored it.  Season 1 ended with looking down the hatch, and in Season 2 they explored the hatch.  Season 2 ended with them getting to the Others, and in Season 3 they explored the Others' society.  They kept moving forward and even with resets, it was never completely reset to a status quo.  

[Dianthus]

I liked Lost, but I watched it mainly for the characters. Charlie was my favorite, with Sawyer running a close second. Hurley, too. I was just along for the ride, never tried puzzling out deeper meanings.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Dianthus
bad spelling

[Rumsy4]

I was a huge spoiler phobe when it came to LOST. I loved endless discussions about the mysteries, and the charatcers as well. My favorites were/are Desmond, Penny, Hurley, and later, Juliet. I never liked Jack or Kate until the final season or two. I think I eventually ended up loving/liking most of the charatcers in LOST except for the infamous Nikki and Paulo. Two charatcers I absolutely hated were Ana Lucia and that psycho Ethan Rom. I did a fully rewatch of the Show last year, and really enjoyed it. 

[Camera One]

32 minutes ago, Dianthus said:

I liked Lost, but I watched it mainly for the characters. Charley was my favorite, with Sawyer running a close second. Hurley, too. I was just along for the ride, never tried puzzling out deeper meanings.

I think that must lie at the root of any sci-fi/fantasy show.  I too watched it primarily for the characters.  I liked all the main characters to varying degrees, which is a must for any show that I spend a lot of time on.  I've watched so many sci-fi shows since then where I didn't care about the characters, so I didn't care about the mythology or the worldbuilding either.  

I've done a "Lost" rewatch up to the point where I started not looking the show, which was mid-Season 5.  The rewatch value is surprisingly good.

In some ways, the characters are what still keeps me tied to "Once".  I still like the main characters who are originals to the show, even as they are being destroyed and/or ignored.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Camera One

[Writing Wrongs]

The whole sideways world reminds me so much of Season 1 of Once. Especially when people remembered their real lives. Total copy.

[KingOfHearts]

55 minutes ago, Writing Wrongs said:

The whole sideways world reminds me so much of Season 1 of Once. Especially when people remembered their real lives. Total copy.

Oh my gosh. Me too! 

Lost evolved over time and took risks. The status quo was constantly changing. Sometimes that really paid off, and others not so much. If it was structured more like Once, all the survivors would decide the beach is their home, a Big Bad would walk up every arc, and Ben would be forgiven and redeemed. 

[Curio]

The only time OUAT made a major change in the status quo was breaking the curse at the end of the first season and bringing magic to Storybrooke. I remember a lot of media articles praised their bold decision to completely shake up the show's formula at the time, but now it makes me wonder if that was just a lucky accident and they won't ever change the status quo like that for the rest of the series. To us, it seemed like a huge shift between Season 1 and 2, but to Adam & Eddy, their vision of the show was probably closer to what it is currently, and they couldn't wait to shake off that Season 1 vibe so they could get to the more formulaic Season 2, 3, 4, 5 type of story telling.

[KingOfHearts]

Remember that A&E wanted to break the curse in the middle of S1, but the network stopped them. I agree that S2 onward was closer to their vision. Breaking the curse just so happened to be how to get there. The writers didn't think, "We're going to move the plot somewhere entirely new so we can explore our characters even more!" Their initial desire was to remove the shackels so they no longer had to play with real world rules.

If the S5 finale destroyed magic, that would have been somewhat of a game changer. Instead we're stuck with random villains and no difference in the status quo. All the characters want is to keep Storybrooke safe. They have no aspirations beyond living comfortably. They lack a higher calling that Lost had in abundance.

Locke was trying to fulfill a greater purpose on the Island. The Others were serving Jacob. All the other survivors had individual goals. Jack's objective through most of the series is getting them to safety, but that ends up diverging. One thing I loved about that show was that it wasn't your typical shipwreck story. It wasn't just about getting off the Island and it wasn't all black and white. 

If parties at Granny's are really the only prize for Team Hero, how does that make them interesting?

Quote

Season 6 would be the fallout and somehow magic would return by the end of the season.

And bringing magic back would be Rumple and the Evil Queen's goal. Rumple is so overpowered right now that he needs some sort of leash to work with. But, as they did with Zelena's Dagger, Hades' contract and the marriage to Belle in 4A, I'm sure there will be something contrived he'll have to work under.

Edited June 2, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[daxx]

For the finale they could have let the cliffhanger be magic being destroyed. Have wicked-heroes save themselves using some contrived means and have it be a race against time as Henry and Violet seek a way to destroy magic In New York or wherever. Season 6 would be the fallout and somehow magic would return by the end of the season.

[Writing Wrongs]

I've been catching up on some movie news. I didn't now that Russell Crowe was playing Dr. Jekyll in the new The Mummy movie. A&E always seem to be right on the nose on what's current.

[Camera One]

I finally got around to seeing the live-action "Cinderella".  The visuals must have been better in the cineplex, but I can never get to watch movies while they're still playing these days.  I was playing the DVD on my computer using VLC player but the window was still pretty small and when I enlarged it to full-screen, everything was a little fuzzy.  So I felt I didn't get the full visuals.  But a strong point would definitely be set design, art direction and costumes.

I was wary of this movie since live-action felt like such retread, but the movie was better than my expectations, especially since I wasn't too keen on the casting, having been lukewarm to the actress in "Downton Abbey" and disliking the appearance of the Prince from the trailer.  

I went back many pages to read everyone's reactions and I agree with the general consensus.  I like how they developed the relationship between the Prince and his father (which kind of paralleled Cinderella losing her parents), and even though Cinderella only met the Prince once before the ball, that conversation, and the conversations they had during the ball fleshed their relationship out.  The whole "Have courage and be kind" was a nice way to tie everything together.  I also appreciated how they didn't throw in curveball twists, yet still filled in the blanks from the animated movie in a satisfactory way.  For example, how Cinderella became a servant... it made sense that the stepmother needed to save money and dismissed the staff.  

I think they did a good job in keeping the tone of it being a fairy tale and the magical nature of it.  

I did find the movie was a bit lacking in humor overall.  I'm glad I was engaged, since there were moments where it was on a razor's edge between mesmerizing and tedious.  There were some missed moments that could have been funny... I was expecting to see Madame Tremaine and the stepsisters conveniently having their view of Cinderella shielded due to the Fairy Godmother's spell to stop them from recognizing Cinders.  

As for the story itself (beware spoilers below), there were some blanks that could have been filled or actions that could have been explained better.  For example, they did an entire long sequence of Cinderella becoming a servant and then they had Cinderella waking up by the ashes and at that point, she was still eating breakfast with them?  That seemed unlikely.  How Cinderella ended up in the attic was a tad contrived and sudden.  When Cinderella got to the ball, why did she immediately walk out onto a balcony?  Why would everyone be looking up?  Or was that balcony leading to the stairs going down?  That was kinda confusing.  The whole engaged-to-Princess-Shelina bit sort of went nowhere.  I'm not sure why the stepmother needed to hear it or say it, since Cinderella wasn't at all affected.  I liked how Cinderella did get to meet the Prince's father, but he was still insisting on Princess Shelina on his deathbed?  They also needed to explain why the Prince didn't run after Cinderella after he showed her the secret garden.  I know they needed to give Cinders a headstart but still.  I actually did like the changed ending where the Prince revealed himself as one of the guards.  Why Cinderella started singing could have been better motivated.  It felt kinda random.  The old hag could also have figured earlier in the story as well.

Cate Blanchett looked nothing like Madame Tremaine in the trailer, so that got me worried.  I still have mixed feelings after watching the movie.  That first smile she gave when she first got to the house was actually perfect, just like the animated villainess.  After that, I just didn't find her role in the story that convincing.  The father didn't even seem to like her partying ways.  So why did he marry her?  It seemed like he was smitten with her in the scene where he told Ella he was getting remarried.  The scene with the Father and Ella bonding over the mother while the Stepmother listened in reminded me of the jealous Regina in "The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree".  The Stepmother didn't seem to love the father, so why did she care about his bond with the daughter?   It was also abrupt when she started becoming really rude to Cinderella.  I didn't find her to be a delicious villainness.  Her whole "raisin d'etre" before she smashed the glass slipper was weak.  The financial motivation did make sense, but not much else.  How did she even find Cinderella's stash?  Her whole deal with the Duke went nowhere too.  I wanted more of a comeuppance for her, though of course it would go against the "Being Kind" mantra.  At least have her trip down the stairs or something.

Watching this movie did enforce for me how there is still value to re-telling old stories, and how it's a shame none of the Princesses got their stories told properly on "Once" except for Snow in Season 1.

Edited July 3, 2016 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

I too watched Cinderella recently. For once, I was glad that we got a straight take on the fairy tale rather than something cynical (like Into the Woods) or villain-sympathetic (Maleficent). I enjoyed the performance of the main leads, and overall it was a good light-hearted adaptation with some really good message about courage and kindness. I don't remember much of the Disney animated movie (not sure if I have even watched it fully), but Ever After is my favorite "Cinderella" story, and I think does a way better job of answering many of the questions you posed @Camera One. Not to mention fleshing out even the step-sisters, and having freaking da Vinci as the fairy godmother. 

My main complaint with the 2015 movie is that it is not at all clear when Ella fell in love with the prince. He was smitten with her, but it seemed like Ella merely enjoyed his company and would cherish the memory of the Ball. But then, suddenly, she says she is in love. I definitely wish that had been built-up more. 

[Writing Wrongs]

I've never understood the slipper thing. He knew what she looked like, so why did they have to try the slipper on every woman in the kingdom?

[Camera One]

I just re-read the Grimm and Perrault versions of "Cinderella", and it looks like the writer of that movie did consult the original tales as well.  The Perrault version had one of the stepsisters calling her "Cinderwench" which they did use in the movie.  The writer used more from the Grimm version, which started with Ella's mother telling her to be good and kind, and Cinders did ask her father to bring back a twig, which they used in the movie.

 but Ever After is my favorite "Cinderella" story

I've been meaning to watch that for years, so now I'm make a point of somehow getting the DVD.

I've never understood the slipper thing. He knew what she looked like, so why did they have to try the slipper on every woman in the kingdom?

I think Cinderella's appearance was supposed to be so transformed she wouldn't have been recognized.  

it seemed like Ella merely enjoyed his company and would cherish the memory of the Ball. But then, suddenly, she says she is in love. I definitely wish that had been built-up more.

I was kind of glad they didn't have an extended sequence of Cinderella being love-struck.  She did seem smitten when she got home from the ball though.  Though it seems like she made her final decision when she heard the Prince's message in the town square.

The narrator said Cinderella was afraid of showing her true self, but really, the Prince already saw her looking her worst in the forest on the horse.

[profdanglais]

The best version of Cinderella is Ella Enchanted. The book, NOT the hideous film with Anne Hathaway which completely destroyed it. The book builds Ella and the prince's relationship over several years, and makes them and the stepmother and stepsisters fully rounded characters while really fleshing out the whole story. Generally I find Cinderella kind of dull, but this version is brilliant. 

[AmeliaBedelia]

I love Ella Enchanted. I'm (gulp) almost 30, and I have a copy on my bookshelf. I bought a new copy a few years back since the first one got worn through use and doggie teeth. I will also watch Ever After whenever I catch it on tv. I love Leonardo's line, "I will forever be remembered as the man who opened a door!"

[TheGreenKnight]

I didn't like the new Cinderella (2015), which surprised me because I love Cate Blanchett and fairytales. I did like the Prince, but that was about it. Blanchett does the best she could do with this version's Stepmother and she looked gorgeous throughout, but to me the character was a confused amalgamation of multiple versions of the character from other adaptations (at one moment tacky and shrill, the next classy and perceptive, another an ambitious social-climber with no real interest in the father, another jealous of Cinderella's relationship with him, etc.),. The girl from Downton Abbey was at her absolute blandest. Worst Cinderella (character) I've ever seen. Ever After is definitely my favorite of the various "Cinderella"'s.

[Camera One]

Watching "Brave" or reading the story of Lancelot/Guinevere was one thing.  I don't know if this show is worth reading "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea", "The Three Musketeers", "Don Quixote", "The Water-Babies", etc., considering they'll probably just be name-dropping.  I tried to read "Gulliver's Travels" a few years ago but couldn't get through it.

[Curio]

I'm pretty sure you'll be fine just reading the Wikipedia entries.

[Camera One]

I kinda want to get the full experience from the books before A&E ruins them, LOL.  I think last year, I got halfway through the long saga of Merlin and Arthur.  I guess it's might as well the show didn't bother with Morgana or Mordred.  I never got to Nimue either, and now I'm forever scarred.

[tennisgurl]

Reading the source material might be both a good and bad thing. You can understand some of the rare subtle moments, and get riotously angry about the crap A&E will do to them. But on the other hand, you can get really frustrated with all the screw ups, and half the time the stuff they do not even use. 

[Camera One]

I just had a great idea!  In Season 7, everyone can travel to the Land of Orphanages, where they meet Little Orphan Annie, Oliver Twist, Jane Eyre, A Little Princess, Anne of Green Gables, and more.  We can have a flashback where we find out that Emma actually spent some time there as a child here, and everyone has to face all their mommy and daddy issues.  

Edited July 18, 2016 by Camera One

[Curio]

And somehow the writers will still make the arc about Regina's issues because she became an orphan at the age of 45.

[Camera One]

One story that will never be featured on "Once" is Chicken Little or Henny Penny.  Because the sky is indeed falling every freakin' minute in whatever air is breathed by these "heroes".

Edited July 18, 2016 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

In the sequel for the live-action adaptation of 101 Dalmatians, Cruella DeVil has been rehabilitated into a dog lover via some special hypnotic therapy. Not too long after she is released, her hypnosis is broken and she starts transforming into her old self. Her nails grow longer, her wardrobe turns austere, her hair flips out into a crazy mess, etc. She cracks and proclaims, "Cruella is back!" Then she goes around kidnapping puppies again. Fun times.

Anyway, this got me thinking about EQ in S6 and how the show visually represents its characters. Costuming is a big deal and a major part of separating "villains" from "heroes". If you wear flashy outfits with lots of cleavage, you're a villain. If you wear bright, conservative, casual wear, you're a hero.

I count on a crap ton of scenery chewing from EQ this upcoming season. With Glenn Close's Cruella, it was off the charts. It's almost seems like A&E were inspired from her.

Edited July 20, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[YaddaYadda]

So I just saw the trailer for The Flash that was done for SDCC, and it got me kind of excited and looking forward to seeing what happens. Why doesn't Once do the same thing, like a few seconds of scenes here and there. Both shows started filming around the same time, so it's not like Once doesn't have the material to throw something together that has to do with their core characters, instead of doing a woe is me Regina recap of her times and life. 

[Camera One]

This show likes to focus on a particular "theme" and they base all the marketing materials for that half-season around it.  Frozen, Queens of Darkness, Dark Swan, Underworld, and now, The Evil Queen.  It's telling that they decided to use that as the theme rather than The Land of Untold Stories, probably because it is so nebulous and random in composition.  I suppose they could have done a intriguing preview with snippets of narration like "These people."  "They don't remember (or they don't want us to know or whatever their deal is) their stories."  "To save them, we need blah blah blah."   And then a snippet of scenes like "Henry, noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!"  "Emma, nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!"  "Regina, noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!  We're your friends and we can't lose you."  

Edited July 27, 2016 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

I really don't appreciate the "teasers" they edit together with no new footage. You know - the ones any fan could make. If they wanted to highlight the Evil Queen, then at least insert a new, brief clip of her from S6. If I see a bunch of scenes we've already seen, only to have it hype up to nothing, I feel cheated. 

It's disappointing that the only new footage we got had nothing directly to do with the main characters.

Edited July 27, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[YaddaYadda]

16 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

It's disappointing that the only new footage we got had nothing directly to do with the main characters.

Well it did have something to do with Emma, she just wasn't there. I would have rather seen that during the episode instead of getting a whole 3 minutes from the show. I don't know if it's the writers that decide what they wanna show, or if they have someone from marketing. It would have been easy to just insert a 5 seconds clip showing Jafar and Aladdin and show everyone else, including their perpetual hard on.

[Shanna Marie]

I saw a thing on Facebook that said Once Upon a Time in Wonderland is now available on the ABC app. I haven't explored that and am not sure how it works -- is it a subscription thing like Netflix, or is it free to anyone? Does it only work on certain devices? But I thought there might be some interest in it here. And if it proves popular, maybe there will be a DVD release (fingers crossed).

[Curio]

9 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

And if it proves popular, maybe there will be a DVD release (fingers crossed).

Wow, I never realized there wasn't an official DVD release for Wonderland. 

When Wonderland first came out, I complained a lot about the lack of production value and the cheesiness from the first few episodes, but they really finished strong towards the end of the arc. And now that Season 5 of the mother show ended on such a downer of a finale and with so much emphasis on the Evil Queen, I might have to go back and rewatch Wonderland to get me hyped about the show again. Plus, it might be good to remember some of the plot points from that series just in case the writers remember to actually do continuity for once in Season 6.

[Rumsy4]

What's with 80s nostalgia and horror? I just caught the first episode of Stranger Things on Netflix. It, like A&E's Dead of Summer, is set in the 80s, and has supernatural elements in it. I did enjoy the episode, way more than DoS (is anyone still watching it?).

[Camera One]

Quote

is anyone still watching it?

Jiminy Crickets might be.  

I've watched 2 episodes... I guess I'll watch more if I'm really bored in the future.

Edited July 30, 2016 by Camera One