OUAT vs. Other Fairy Tales: Compare & Contrast

[Shanna Marie]

I was having one of those mental rabbit trail days, thinking about the way this show handles the Beauty and the Beast story, and that got me thinking about the Disney Beauty and the Beast and how wonky it is when you really think about it.

One thing this show gets horribly wrong about the story is that the point of the story is that you can't judge by appearances, that the fearsome Beast could be good inside, and when someone was kind to him, he was somewhat tamed (which probably had a lot to do with a metaphor for young girls being forced to marry unattractive much older men). But in this show, the Beast really is evil. In the Enchanted Forest, he has the sparkly crocodile skin and impish behavior, but the Mr. Gold version is a rather attractive, well-dressed, well-mannered man. His problem isn't that he's a beast on the outside, it's that whenever he's given a choice between good and evil, he generally chooses evil because of his lust for power. They can't even pretend that it was all the fault of the Dark One now that he chose to subvert Hook's sacrifice and take the Dark One power back even when he was his normal self with a pure, clean heart and enough heroism to be able to draw Excalibur. So it's the exact opposite of the Beauty and the Beast story, and that means our Belle isn't a good-hearted girl who can see past the fearsome exterior to love the good person within the Beast, but rather she's a girl who loves an attractive, wealthy, powerful, evil man who keeps lying to her, deceiving her, and hurting her friends and family.

But the Disney version has its own screwiness. I do think it does better than most of the fairy tale versions in getting over the Stockholm Syndrome issue. The fairy tales tend to skim past the developing relationship part, and the Disney version shows them becoming friends and finding common ground. Where things get weird is with the prologue. In most of the fairy tale versions, there's no reason given for the curse. The Beast isn't being punished. He's just been attacked. He's a victim. Disney doubles down on the "you can't judge by appearances" message and makes the Beast be punished for turning away an ugly old woman who turned out to be a beautiful enchantress in disguise. That creates two big problems. One is that the narrative structure doesn't fit that story. If he's supposed to be learning a lesson, he's never tested on it. We don't know if he got over that problem, since all we see is him falling in love with the most beautiful girl in town. I'd hope that being a beast would have taught him empathy about looks, but we don't know. You really can't establish a major character flaw at the beginning and then never show whether that person has learned anything. The person who's tested on that is Belle, who has to choose between the ugly on the outside, good on the inside Beast and the attractive on the outside, ugly on the inside Gaston, except she's never been shown to have a problem with that or a need to learn that lesson.

And then there's the part where the enchantress curses not only the Beast, but all of his servants, who don't seem to have had anything to do with him turning away the old woman. The curse would have separated them from any of their friends and family who lived outside the castle, and could have condemned them all to that state forever. So, you know, maybe the prince wasn't wrong about her, after all. He'd have been wrong if he let in the beautiful enchantress without figuring out that she was a psychotic vengeful hag on the inside, but turning away someone that cruel seems like he was judging her accurately. When you look at it that way, it's almost like something they'd write on this show, where the cruel hag who curses everyone is the victim, and the person who wasn't sure about a stranger who turned out to be cruel is shown to be a terrible person.

[Camera One]

I do agree it was cruel for the Enchantress to put a Curse on everyone in the Castle, but the animated movie never said or implied she was a victim.  She does come off as a sanctimonious higher being trying to teach someone a lesson.

The prologue does stress that the prince was "spoiled, selfish and unkind".  And to break the enchantment, he had to EARN someone's love in return.  And in order to return to his original self, he did have to make a sacrifice bigger than himself, to let Belle go, and later, to be willing to die for her.

So while I agree the "you can't judge by appearances" lesson seemed more learned by Belle than the Beast, he did have to learn to be a better person.  

[Shanna Marie]

On 9/14/2016 at 0:27 AM, Camera One said:

I do agree it was cruel for the Enchantress to put a Curse on everyone in the Castle, but the animated movie never said or implied she was a victim.

I don't think the movie implied that. I was just saying that the OUAT writers would have taken it that step further.

On 9/14/2016 at 0:27 AM, Camera One said:

The prologue does stress that the prince was "spoiled, selfish and unkind".  And to break the enchantment, he had to EARN someone's love in return.  And in order to return to his original self, he did have to make a sacrifice bigger than himself, to let Belle go, and later, to be willing to die for her.

But the movie doesn't really show that. The narrative doesn't flow. The only data point we're given to show that he was spoiled, selfish, and unkind was him judging by appearances (and not being entirely wrong). It might have worked better if instead he'd been shown being a bully to someone else, and then the enchantress said that if he was going to act like a beast, he might as well be one until he could learn to be loving and caring. They got their messages muddled, trying to make some kind of theme out of the "don't judge by appearances" message of the fairy tale but sending another message entirely (gee, sounds kind of familiar).

One other bit of weirdness about the movie vs. fairy tale: In most of the fairy tale versions, the setup is that Beauty's father is a merchant whose ships were lost, sending the family into poverty. Then he gets the news that one of his ships has finally come in, and when he goes to get and trade his goods, he asks his daughters what they want him to bring them. The older two ask for fine clothes and jewels while the youngest only asks for a single red rose. On his way home, he sees the Beast's garden and takes a rose, outraging the Beast. When the Beast hears the story, he demands the merchant send his youngest daughter specifically because he believes that a girl who would only ask for a rose might be the one who could break the curse. He's not just being a jerk. By changing the setup story, the movie misses that. It's the servants who decide after meeting Belle that she might be able to break the curse. The Beast is just being a jerk.

Mind you, it's still probably my favorite "princess" movie, but it does have some flaws if you think too much about it. The bit about proving that he's learned not to judge by appearances by falling in love with the most beautiful girl in town has always bugged me, though. I like the Robin McKinley novelization of the fairy tale (which came out long before the movie and which has enough stuff in it that ended up in the movie that she might have had a case), in which "Beauty" is an ironic nickname. She's the least beautiful of her sisters and the one who has to do all the work when they become poor because she's sturdy and they're so fragile. So both she and the Beast are having to look past surface appearance, and he actually kind of falls for her before meeting her because he's impressed that all she asked for was a rose.

[TheGreenKnight]

On ‎9‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 6:47 PM, Shanna Marie said:

But the Disney version has its own screwiness. I do think it does better than most of the fairy tale versions in getting over the Stockholm Syndrome issue. The fairy tales tend to skim past the developing relationship part, and the Disney version shows them becoming friends and finding common ground. Where things get weird is with the prologue. In most of the fairy tale versions, there's no reason given for the curse. The Beast isn't being punished. He's just been attacked. He's a victim. Disney doubles down on the "you can't judge by appearances" message and makes the Beast be punished for turning away an ugly old woman who turned out to be a beautiful enchantress in disguise. That creates two big problems. One is that the narrative structure doesn't fit that story. If he's supposed to be learning a lesson, he's never tested on it. We don't know if he got over that problem, since all we see is him falling in love with the most beautiful girl in town. I'd hope that being a beast would have taught him empathy about looks, but we don't know. You really can't establish a major character flaw at the beginning and then never show whether that person has learned anything. The person who's tested on that is Belle, who has to choose between the ugly on the outside, good on the inside Beast and the attractive on the outside, ugly on the inside Gaston, except she's never been shown to have a problem with that or a need to learn that lesson.

You're forgetting the end of the movie when Beast both lets Belle go to save her father (thinking she wouldn't return) and then shows mercy to Gaston. At the beginning of the movie, the Beast is no doubt a villain. He nearly kills Belle's father for no reason and then doesn't even allow Belle to say goodbye when he throws him out. Considering the servants pretty much stand around and let all these things happen, their punishment is/was deserved, imo.

[Shanna Marie]

5 minutes ago, TheGreenKnight said:

You're forgetting the end of the movie when Beast both lets Belle go to save her father (thinking she wouldn't return) and then shows mercy to Gaston.

I'm not forgetting that at all. I'm just saying that this isn't the lesson set up by the prologue, in which we're told that the Beast was cursed because he judged based on appearances. He definitely became a better person and proved that, but he was never tested again on the thing that he was cursed for. He learned to love, but the person he learned to love was the most beautiful girl in town. Instead of hammering us with the "don't judge by appearances" moral, the prologue might have worked better if the Beast had been turned into a beast to match his actions after he did something cruel or nasty, and then he showed his humanity at the end by letting Belle go and showing mercy to Gaston. Instead, the plot was prince judges by appearances, is turned into a beast as punishment, then shows he's changed by falling in love with the most beautiful girl in town.

[TheGreenKnight]

But the enchantress doesn't curse him because he thought she was ugly? She punishes him because "there was no love in his heart." He left an old woman to die in the snow because of something petty like her appearance. His development is about learning not to be the beast he is on the inside ("if he could learn to love another"). I know the prologue ends with him thinking, "Who could ever love a beast?" That is because he is stuck on the external (the reason he was cruel to the Enchantress), when his real problem is internal. After he's cursed, he doesn't think, "Wow. I'm an asshole," but "I'm hideous!" And he assumed nobody could love him because he would not. The real lesson was about learning to develop beauty within himself. His fight with Gaston and his choice to have mercy makes sense because Gaston is a reflection of who he was at the beginning of the movie.

[KingOfHearts]

Stranger Things pulls off 1983 much better than Once Upon a Time ever did.

Edited September 27, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Dianthus]

personally, I prefer Aladdin to Beauty and the Beast. considering it's TS,TW, I'm sure they'll find a way to muck that up too.

[icewolf]

Lion King live action remake movie directed by Jon Favreau has been announced. Worst idea ever!

Lion King characters in Once Upon A Time is basically confirmed now...

Edited September 28, 2016 by icewolf

[Curio]

Nooooooo! That's my favorite Disney movie. At least if OUAT did their spin on it, it would be different enough from the original source that it would feel like a completely different thing. But there's no need for Jon Favreau to put his ultra-realistic CGI spin on a movie that's already damn near perfection.

[Camera One]

Look, Scar was really misunderstood, okay?  

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

Look, Scar was really misunderstood, okay?  

I still would like to see a human version of Scar on Once.

I'm watching Stranger Things right now, and it reminds me of S1 Once in some ways. It takes places in a small town, there's a supernatural conspiracy, and it spends a lot of time trying to get certain characters to believe in what's really going on. It's not a very fast-paced series, but I wouldn't call it "slice of life", either. Everyone in it stays pretty focused on the main plot. It detours very little. What I like about it most is that it immerses you in its world. The sets are very detailed and the tone is consistent. The story isn't something we've never seen before (it pays homages to many things), but the execution is done well. It's surprising to see child actors who are actually good at acting.

I wish the female characters had more bangs, though. A few of them (particularly Nancy) look too contemporary.

Edited September 28, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

I was at Costco and saw a bunch of books from Disney Press... one was about The Evil Queen, one was about Ursula and one was about The Beast, revealing their backstories.

Found a link with the author of the books:
http://comicsalliance.com/serena-valentino-gloomcookie-disney-villains-interview/

I thought you would all enjoy these quotes...

Serena Valentino: Some time back I was given the opportunity to write the backstory for the Wicked Queen from Disney’s Snow White, called Fairest of All. It’s heartbreaking story of abuse, neglect, and overwhelming grief. I think what I loved most about the story was the loving relationship between the Wicked Queen and Snow White when the queen first comes to marry Snow’s father. It was interesting to explore another side of this woman who was deeply flawed, and wounded by her abusive father, and to see how no matter her intentions to the contrary she continued that cycle of abuse with her daughter Snow White, whom she had once loved deeply.

So I suppose my goal is to explore all these unanswered questions and to create a compelling story with characters the readers can relate to. I feel like I’m giving these villains a voice, and a chance to tell their stories from their point of view, and sometimes it’s heartbreaking.

[Spartan Girl]

I thought Serena Valentino did a good job on her Snow White/Evil Queen take. And you'll be pleased to know that in Poor Unfortunate Soul, Ursula STAYS evil, despite the sob story. So there's that.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Spartan Girl

[Mathius]

Yeah, that book was like Regina done right: the abusive parent background explained and informed her behavior, but it didn't justify it. 

And in the end, she wasn't redeemed but did have some deathbed repentance, which I always thought would be a good end for Regina.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Mathius

[Shanna Marie]

This is going to sound like a weird comparison, but I kept thinking of this show when watching Westworld. They write this show like it is some kind of game with a few player characters and a bunch of robots providing the scenery and being expendable. Regina is a "guest" playing the role of Evil Queen, and she's allowed to rip out hearts and kill people left and right because they're all robot "hosts," and since she's the paying customer, she's always in the right. Emma may be another guest who's trying to make the right decisions and do the right things, but her fun is being thwarted by the other guests playing villains who treat her like she's a host. Hook is a guest who started out thinking it would be fun to play a villain character and do whatever he wanted, but then once he started doing it, he realized he didn't have the stomach for it and it wasn't as cool as he thought it would be, so he decided to change roles in mid-stream. I'm afraid that Snow and David are just robots who are just programmed to carry out whatever story is going on at the moment.

[tri4335]

13 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

This is going to sound like a weird comparison, but I kept thinking of this show when watching Westworld. They write this show like it is some kind of game with a few player characters and a bunch of robots providing the scenery and being expendable. Regina is a "guest" playing the role of Evil Queen, and she's allowed to rip out hearts and kill people left and right because they're all robot "hosts," and since she's the paying customer, she's always in the right. Emma may be another guest who's trying to make the right decisions and do the right things, but her fun is being thwarted by the other guests playing villains who treat her like she's a host. Hook is a guest who started out thinking it would be fun to play a villain character and do whatever he wanted, but then once he started doing it, he realized he didn't have the stomach for it and it wasn't as cool as he thought it would be, so he decided to change roles in mid-stream. I'm afraid that Snow and David are just robots who are just programmed to carry out whatever story is going on at the moment.

My DH and I were comparing this show to Westworld too!  We also don't want an awesome idea to then fizzle as it did here i.e. they write themselves into a corner.  Ford is the Rumple character.

[maryle]

I watched timeless and liked it I found that they were not taking themself too seriously like I do think Once pretend to be this revolutionary shit when they just really a bad fantasy soap. And, yes even if I do believe season 1 was better for the cohesion if it always thought the soap elements was already there. 

[Dianthus]

Interview with the Vampire was first published in 1976. I read it (the first time) in high school about 10 yrs later. One of the things I found most compelling about it is that the vamps aren't just evil monsters. They're complicated beings, with thoughts and feelings just like the mortals they used to be. Fast forward to 2016, and now we're being asked to care about the idea that Regina's victims aren't being fair to her. Let's let that sink in for a moment. Regina's victims aren't being fair to her! I mean, boo-fucking-hoo, right? How the hell did we get here?!?

[KAOS Agent]

In comparing Once to Westworld, I think the thing to look at is that the showrunners have thoroughly mapped out the rules of the park. They say that those rules won't necessarily be laid out in show because the perspective is the hosts' and the audience is supposed to watch and will eventually see how it all works as the hosts do. But how it all works, the rules of the world and everything has been laid out from the start and is what the scripts are based on. When asked a series of logistical questions about the show, the showrunner gave complex, detailed answers that are unlikely to ever be explicitly mentioned in show, but it's very obvious she understands everything about Westworld.  Compare this to early interviews with the Once showrunners where they were shocked that people wanted to know the rules of the world. How did the curse work with Henry around? How do things get to town? How does magic work? They laughed about it because they didn't know. They didn't have a basic world building map that addressed these things so that the events in the show made logical sense with all of the writers on the same page.

Edited October 9, 2016 by KAOS Agent

[Camera One]

"Mulan" film has been green-lit and Sony is reportedly thinking of doing a rival film.

There were reports that the original script for the live-action "Mulan" centered around a Caucasian merchant who falls in love with Mulan and helps to save China.  Now, Disney is saying that was just a "jumping-off point" and the new script being written is going to be more about Mulan.

http://screenrant.com/disney-mulan-live-action-director-sony/

[Camera One]

I've just started reading "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" and I'm worried I won't be finished reading it before the corresponding episode comes up, in which case I might be behind watching the show.  Though maybe one of you can let me know if they are only using the names of the characters.  I must admit, had I not finished reading "The Count of Monte Cristo" and then watched Episode 2, I might have been expecting Charlotte to show up or Edmond to stab someone in cold blood.

[Camera One]

I was watching a clip of the "Peter Pan" movie (the "You Can Fly" sequence), and I never realized Peter Pan and the kids land on the minute hand on the giant clock, moving it to 8:15.  I always assumed that was just yet another Easter Egg for "Lost" fans (Ocean 815 was the flight that crashed on "Lost").

[orza]

Well, Hook and some kind of Peter Pan story were planned from the very beginning. It was said in several interviews that they wanted to start that earlier than they did. That's a well-known scene from the movie so the clock tower was a fun hint, like the flying monkeys we saw in Henry's book.

[Camera One]

I haven't read an interview with them explaining why 8:15 specifically.  I assumed it was homage to "Lost" since there were many references to "Lost" in the pilot.  Perhaps it was also a homage to Peter Pan but it is not possible to confirm that without actual quotes.  

[Dianthus]

Last night I watched Love and Friendship, a movie based on Jane Austin's Lady Susan. She reminded me of Cora without the magic. At least her daughter didn't remind me of Regina. ;-P

[Rumsy4]

I enjoyed that movie a lot. I can see the comparison to Cora. lol

[Shanna Marie]

Yes, she was very Cora, wasn't she? I need to get that one on DVD because it made me laugh so much. And drool over the costumes.

[Spartan Girl]

The Aladdin storyline overall disappointed me, just as I predicted.  But it did make me nostalgic for the Disney movies and the TV series.

Gosh, you remember the TV series?  It was so good.  Jasmine got to shine as a badass.  And yeah, Aladdin could be cocky and a little oversure of himself (not to mention oblivious at times), but it was nowhere like the version on OUAT.

The parts on OUAT when Aladdin and Jasmine kept getting interrupted from actually kissing reminded me of one of my favorite episodes, "Night of the Living Mud," where Genie kept walking in on them on a date they were having to the point where it was driving Al bonkers.  Classic.

Back in the days of TWOP and before his untimely demise, it was suggested that maybe Robin Williams should go on OUAT to reprise Genie.  Doubt the writers would have been so generous, but if only.  If only...

[CCTC]

Not sure if this is the right place for this - but compare the emotional depth of this 15 minute short compared to the interaction seen on the show today.  They should give Josh a little more to do.

[Curio]

53 minutes ago, CCTC said:

They should give Josh a little more to do.

Agreed. There are quite a few cast members that should be better utilized on this show.

[Mathius]

Now THAT is a twist, I did not see that ending coming. *Sniff!*

Quote

Well, Hook and some kind of Peter Pan story were planned from the very beginning. It was said in several interviews that they wanted to start that earlier than they did.

Yeah, Adam's favorite fairy tale is Snow White and Eddie's is Peter Pan, so both were always going to play a big role from the start.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Mathius

[Rumsy4]

It was a well-acted short, but I didn't like the mom being relegated to the role of damsel in distress. Josh definitely needs to be given more substantial stuff to do in OUAT.

[Camera One]

2 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

But I think that there's more setup and payoff for the shocks in Game of Thrones, especially in the earlier seasons. The brilliance of the Red Wedding isn't the shockingness of it, but the fact that the groundwork was laid each step of the way, to the point that when you look back, it was inevitable. We saw what the characters involved were like, saw the customs that would be violated, saw the things that would have set it off. And we're still seeing fallout from it, years later. It totally changed the course of the lives of many characters. Compare that to the way a lot of Rumple's betrayals are treated, where the resolution comes from nowhere and it ends up having no long-term effect. Or look at the aftermath of Jon Snow's death/resurrection compared to Hook's. We saw more reaction to Jon's return, and he's talked about what death was like and wanting to stay dead this time, there were moments where you could see him realizing that he wanted to live. You can't even tell now that Hook ever died. There is still a high value placed on shock, and on that show it's often just visible or moral shock (the rape scenes, the gore), but for the plot twist shocks, there's more to it. On this show, it's just plot twists that are surprising only because they came out of the blue and make no sense. Game of Thrones rewards rewatching because you can see how things are set up. On Once Upon a Time, rewatching is just infuriating because you can spot all the contradictions and it's obvious that there's no setup.

I don't watch "Game of Thrones", but that really reminded me of the first few episodes of Season 6 of "Buffy" (after she "died" at the end of the Season 5 finale), where they actually DID spend time dealing with Buffy dealing with being alive again.  I think that's a really good point that "Once" is very superficial because they never deal with the emotional impact of any of the big plot events so after a few episodes, it might as well have never happened.  

I suppose the only thing that's different is we saw exactly what it was like being "dead" in Underbrooke, and it was pretty much just like being alive. But still, that doesn't excuse all the emotional issues Hook (and everyone else) should still have had after the experiences they had in Season 5.

[Shanna Marie]

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

I don't watch "Game of Thrones", but that really reminded me of the first few episodes of Season 6 of "Buffy" (after she "died" at the end of the Season 5 finale), where they actually DID spend time dealing with Buffy dealing with being alive again.  I think that's a really good point that "Once" is very superficial because they never deal with the emotional impact of any of the big plot events so after a few episodes, it might as well have never happened.  

It is interesting to compare the different depictions of coming back from the dead. With Buffy, we didn't see it, but were told that she was in heaven and happy and at peace there, and her friends, in doing the magic to bring her back to life, ripped her out of heaven and back to an earth that was hell in comparison, where she still had the cosmic destiny and chosen one duties. She went through an existential crisis, trying to get her act together and just feel something while she was, as the song put it, "Going Through the Motions." Jon said he saw no afterlife, only nothingness. There have been hints elsewhere in that world that when magic is used to bring someone back, they have a little less of their humanity each time. Jon said he didn't want to be brought back again. He wanted to be allowed to die for good if he died again, and he went into battle with no fear of death -- but then when he really and truly faced death again, he found himself fighting to survive, and that was the moment when he truly came back to life. We may have seen what the Underworld was like with Hook, but he got a glimpse of a greater Afterlife that was their world's version of heaven. He was at peace with moving on, but then suddenly found himself alive again instead. But we don't know what he feels about this, other than that he got to be back with his girlfriend. Does he have any fear of death? Does he consider himself a new man with a second chance? Is he changing anything about the way he lives? This is the kind of thing where we need at least a line of dialogue. In Buffy, they used the musical episode to force her to share her feelings in song. Jon talked about what he thought about death before he went into battle. Hook hasn't said anything about being dead, and no one has said anything to him about it. It's really just bizarre that someone died, that everything they tried to do to save him from the Underworld failed and they had to return to the land of the living without him, they must have had a funeral at some point because he's got a tombstone, and then he showed up again out of the blue, and you'd think he'd gone to the store and come back with the beer (David's reaction) but without the eggs he was sent for (Regina's reaction). That makes it a lot harder to care about the characters because they aren't real people. They've got all the depth and inner life of paper dolls (and at least paper dolls get to change clothes every so often).

[Camera One]

I'm five chapters away from finishing reading "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea".  I think I might be able to make it before tomorrow night's episode.  

Only to find out they are combining the story with "Finding Nemo", I'll bet.

Edited October 30, 2016 by Camera One

[CCTC]

I read "20,000 Leagues" a couple of years ago.  I don't know if it was a bad translation or I was just not in the right mind-set, but it was a bit of an effort for me to slog through.  I did a bit of skimming (a lot of description of underwater plants).  It might be one of the few times what I have seen on-screen in movies was better than the book.

I watched Sidekick one more time.  I understand the criticism of too much damsel in distress and burdening the kid of being a hero, but I thought it really nailed the emotions of what was happening.  My keeping it understated and not doing the typical TV movie melodramatic scenes, it had a raw real feel to it.  Josh and Emily really looked like they were weighed down by their burden and seemed like a couple trying to deal with the unthinkable day by day.

[KingOfHearts]

I remember being forced to watch the 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea movie as a kid. I found it boring then, but I would probably appreciate its (no pun intended) emotional depth now. There used to be a submarine ride at Disneyland based on it. Unfortunately once I got to ride it, it became Finding Nemo.

[Camera One]

I finished the Gutenberg version and despite my interest in wildlife, the list of species got a bit much... maybe it was the translation.

On paper Captain Nemo fits the theme and morality of revenge but then again so did the Count of Monte Cristo and the show did nothing with it.  Maybe Hook watched Nemo sink a ship with David's dad on it but they said he was stabbed?  Not sure why we bother to speculate LOL.

The book left a lot of unanswered questions about Nemo so the writers have lots to play with. Or replace play with destroy.

Edited October 30, 2016 by Camera One

[kitticup]

On 10/28/2016 at 5:41 AM, CCTC said:

Not sure if this is the right place for this - but compare the emotional depth of this 15 minute short compared to the interaction seen on the show today.  They should give Josh a little more to do.

That was really good.  It's such a shame that the writers aren't better.  Every single one of the main cast can knock it out of the park

[pezgirl7]

Entertainment Weekly has a cover story on the new Beauty and the Beast movie. I'm still not sure about the choice of Emma Watson as Belle, or the look of the CGI beast, but I'm all over Luke Evans' Gaston! Definitely a different take on the character. And just wait until everyone hears him sing! :)

http://www.ew.com/gallery/beauty-and-the-beast-photos

[Camera One]

Emma Watson said in an interview that (spoiler for this adaptation)

Spoiler

they also decided to make Belle an inventor as well because the animated movie made it unclear why she didn't fit in other than that she read books all the time.

Edited November 7, 2016 by Camera One

[Dianthus]

Actually, I believe we did get to see Buffy's idea of "Heaven" in Normal Again. Whedon considers himself agnostic/atheist, so it's just not the stereotypical harps and haloes kind of place. The doctor in the AU makes reference to her "awakening" over the summer...the summer she was dead. Being The Slayer was some kind of crazy delusion, but she was getting the help she needed, and both her parents were still alive, still together, and fully supporting her recovery.

[Spartan Girl]

Those who love retellings/prequels about Wonderland, I highly recommend Heartless by Marissa Meyer, which is her take on the origin story of the Queen of Hearts. It is a little similar to Regina's season one backstory before she became St. Woegina, but don't worry, this book is better. Definitely check it out, it was just released today!

[Camera One]

I was listening to the stage musical adaptation of Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and I was wondering why this story isn't appearing this season.  If they plan to tackle this, the Land of Untold Stories would be a natural place.  Maybe Rumple will be tormented by lustful dreams of The Evil Queen.  He, Frollo and Jafar will discuss their bad luck with women.  Frollo will commiserate with The Evil Queen about the enjoyment derived from burning villages.  Quasimodo will share with Emma the costs of being a Savior, since yes, he's one too.   Maybe A&E aren't fans of "The Hunchback".

Edited November 10, 2016 by Camera One

[Camera One]

Listening to the new musical made me want to watch part of the animated movie again.  The Phoebus/Esmeralda meeting reminded me a little of the antagonism between Snow and Charming in "Snow Falls", especially this line:

Esmeralda: Are you always this charming, or am I just lucky? (She swings the staff at Phoebus, who blocks it with his sword. They fight.)

Phoebus: (Between Esmeralda's swings) Candlelight...privacy... music. Can't think of a better place for hand-to-hand combat! You fight almost as well as a man!

Esmeralda: Funny. I was going to say the same thing about you.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

I do see the Phoebus/Esmerelda parallels with Snowing. They do share dispositions - Esmerelda is a thief trying to protect her people while escaping a tyrant who's obsessed with her, and Phoebus is an honorable man who is forced to work for evil authorities, but later defies them. We've discussed the Regina/Frollo parallels in fine detail before. For a story we've never seen on Once, it sure feels like we have.

Edited November 11, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

I was just thinking that Esmeralda could have been a "Savior" too.  Phoebus and Quasimodo could have brought her to The Land of Untold Stories, because they didn't want her to die.  But now that she's in Storybrooke, she realizes she has to die for the good of all, and she has scenes with Emma.  Phoebus has scenes with Hook, and Quasi with Snowing and Henry.  The Evil Queen and Frollo set up a bonfire in front of the Town Square to burn Esmeralda at the stake, and Esmeralda eventually dies, even though Emma risks her own destiny (maybe by giving up the magical Shears) by trying to save her (perhaps Aladdin, moved by Esmeralda's courage, also decide to become a Savior again despite the death omen).  Esmeralda's last words are only one Savior has to die every millennium, so Emma and Aladdin are now saved, but don't tell Rumple or The Evil Queen that.  And then Emma and Heroes pretend that Emma will die, and use that to finally defeat The Evil Queen.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Camera One

[Spartan Girl]

And THAT, OUAT, is how it's supposed to be done!  *mic drop*

[Writing Wrongs]

Looks awesome.