OUAT vs. Other Fairy Tales: Compare & Contrast

[CCTC]

1 minute ago, superloislane said:

I also LOVED Lois who got so much better written and was finally given a place in the show from season 8 on and that helped the show a lot.

I agree,  I found Lois annoying when she would appear from time to time as the slightly older college student who was a bit condescending to Clark and a bit obnoxious over-all.   Once she became a regular character who was now a reporter she was much better and much more likable.  

The middle seasons were probably the worst when Lana became the focal point of the show surpassing the Clark-Lex dynamic.  I vaguely remember a season involving Jane Seymour and Jensen Ackles and Lana being descended from a witch (or maybe Jane Seymour was the only witch_, but I have blocked most of it out.  The last seasons maybe were not technically as good as the first few, but in some ways it embraced its superhero element and was more fun.  They also seemed to rely more on some of the other characters, because Tom Welling seemed to be sleepwalking through the role by the last season or two.

[Camera One]

One reason I was never into the fandom because every message board just went on and on about how everyone hated Lana.  It was tiresome and repetitive.  

I found Lois annoying when she would appear from time to time as the slightly older college student who was a bit condescending to Clark and a bit obnoxious over-all.   Once she became a regular character who was now a reporter she was much better and much more likable.  

That's good to know. 

[Curio]

46 minutes ago, Camera One said:

One reason I was never into the fandom because every message board just went on and on about how everyone hated Lana.  It was tiresome and repetitive.  

 

So you're saying we haven't hit the Lana Lang limit yet with Regina?

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, Camera One said:

One reason I was never into the fandom because every message board just went on and on about how everyone hated Lana.  It was tiresome and repetitive.  

I don't particularly recall hating Lana on Smallville.  I do recall being annoyed with her for being the archetype of the brunette female lead of CW shows from which all other brunette female leads of CW shows sprung to truly annoy the shit out of me for years to come.

8 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

I've seen similar shows do it without declining for much longer periods than OUAT could. OUAT stopped working in S4, while something like Lost or BTVS didn't really fall until S6.

I think Lost failed before that.  At least I gave up when they ended three episodes in a row on opening the hatch.

That is probably my problem with shows that try this structure.  The repetitiveness of nothing really happening is something I don't have patience for. 

I think BTVS worked better because the writing staff and show runner was just way more creative.  There were always a lot of bottle episodes that hadn't been done before even if no progress was happening on the main arc.  Supernatural used to really excel at that as well.

OUAT writers just don't care enough about the source material (fairy tales) to create those unique episodes where nothing really happens to move plot along but are either interesting enough or show enough character beats that it doesn't matter.

Edited April 5, 2017 by ParadoxLost

[Camera One]

I just watched "The BFG" on DVD.  I loved the book when I was a kid, so it surprised me the movie was so boring.  I don't remember much about the book, and I'm assuming it was pretty faithful, but all the "magic" and charm was lost.

Edited April 5, 2017 by Camera One

[Dianthus]

So it seems Hook and spike have one other thing in common. EW got all the stars and Joss Whedon together for a 20th anniversary reunion. At one point they asked Gellar, Whedon, and Marsters: Spike or Angel? Gellar was firmly in the Angel camp, but I kinda knew that already. Whedon was like, well Spike did win back his soul, but yay Bangel. Even Marsters was like Angel's the One for Buffy, but it's impossible. Maybe in time Spike would be worthy. As stupid as it seems, I've been low-grade bummed about it all day. Spike was tortured by a hellgod, fought at Buffy's side, and made the ultimate sacrifice, but Angel gets all the love. I just can't.

Edited April 6, 2017 by Dianthus
word choice

[Camera One]

14 minutes ago, Tiger said:

When are we going to see the untold story of Aunt Jemima?!?

Great idea!  If the ratings are down and the show needs more money, why not visit The Land of Corporate Mascots?  Our heroes can meet Tony the Tiger in Kelloggs Frosted Flakes Land, Colonel Sanders, the Energizer Rabbit, Pillsbury Dough Boy, Mr. Clean and Mr. Peanut.  

[KingOfHearts]

14 minutes ago, Camera One said:

Great idea!  If the ratings are down and the show needs more money, why not visit The Land of Corporate Mascots?  Our heroes can meet Tony the Tiger in Kelloggs Frosted Flakes Land, Colonel Sanders, the Energizer Rabbit, Pillsbury Dough Boy, Mr. Clean and Mr. Peanut.  

Rumple and Colonel Sanders can hatch a diabolic scheme to steal all the power from Energizer Rabbit using an enchanted chicken wing from Camelot.

Edited April 7, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Tiger]

10 hours ago, Camera One said:

Great idea!  If the ratings are down and the show needs more money, why not visit The Land of Corporate Mascots?  Our heroes can meet Tony the Tiger in Kelloggs Frosted Flakes Land, Colonel Sanders, the Energizer Rabbit, Pillsbury Dough Boy, Mr. Clean and Mr. Peanut.  

 

The episode descriptions practically write themselves:

"When Henry crashes Regina's Lexus RS while listening to SiriusXM satellite radio, Emma must seek the ancient wisdom of Flo from Progressive.  And in the land that was, Charming must convince Betty Crocker and Mrs. Butterworth to end their fued over Papa John".  

[Camera One]

I watched "La La Land" today and had to laugh in the scene where

Spoiler

the idiot writer at the party talked about telling Goldilocks and the Three Bears from the perspective of the bears, and "who's to say there wasn't a fourth bear".  Did the screenwriter know A&E?

[Rumsy4]

The Fourth Bear is a really funny book in the Nursery Crime series by Jasper Fforde.

[KingOfHearts]

Rewatching Lost with someone who hasn't seen it before. Well into S1 already. I actually hate several of the main characters, and they're what makes it hard to watch for me. Jack and Locke may come from opposite sides, but they're both pretentious jerks to me. Locke especially bothered me this time around. He was manipulating everyone to stay on the island, and he was revered as some wise sage. The characters trusted him way too much. I had a similar problem with Emerald City - none of the main characters are likable. Some of the side characters are great, Jack, Locke, and Kate all suck. The side characters are infinitely more interesting.

Truth be told, I both hate and love Lost.

Edited April 11, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

In my last rewatch of "Lost", I did also feel some anger at some characters when they act like jerks.  But even the characters I was angry at, there were moments in their centrics where I did like them and feel for them, albeit for a short time.  Because of that, it was nothing like "Emerald City".  I always maintain a show will never be a favorite if I don't like almost all the main characters to some degree, and "Lost" still falls into that category.  I was still quite engaged and intrigued by the mythology on rewatch (even though I knew what would happen) and I still connected even with some of the abrasive characters... like Jack and his need to fix things, or Locke and being underestimated.  I disliked him as well, but I could see how the survivors had very little option in such a horrible situation to trust someone like Locke.  I did watch for the supporting characters, who still got good material at least until mid-Season 5.

I was just watching a bonus DVD extra on Acting on Lost, and it was interesting to see how the actors dealt with not knowing their backstories, which would have been very similar to working on "Once Upon a Time".  It's clear the actors put a lot of thought into their performances, which made the show elevate above some of the problems.  

Edited April 11, 2017 by Camera One

[InsertWordHere]

I never cared about Kate or Jack but I had a lot of love for Hurley, Sun, and Jin. Later seasons Sawyer wasn't too bad but early Sawyer was just a snarky jerk. I didn't like Juliet at first either but later loved her. Early Locke was kind of fascinating but they dropped the ball with him pretty quickly. 

I guess I watched more for the mystery and for the perfection that was The Constant. Ah, I kind of want to watch that episode right now. 

[Rumsy4]

The Constant is the single most perfect episode of television. 

All my favs in LOST have been non-main characters like Hurley, Desmond, Penny, Sayid, Charlie, etc.. I first disliked Juliet, but later ended up loving her character. Same with Ben, though I can't say I love the character. I couldn't stand either Jack or Kate until the final seasons, when I finally started tolerating to somewhat liking them. Locke started to exasperate me pretty soon into the Show. I found Sawyer highly entertaining, even when I sometimes disliked his behavior. Sawyer became quite sympathetic towards the end. The only characters I have no love for were Nikki and Paulo, Ana Lucia, and that Charlotte something who was helping Charles Widmore.

LOST is probably my favorite TV show despite its flaws. In spite of the myriads of plots, Damon and Carlton managed to make it about the characters and their relationships. The final season was a bit of a hot mess, and they didn't wrap everything up properly (though they actually answered a lot more questions than people accuse them of), but the end was satisfying for me. There's no way they could have given a definitive explanation about the Island after 6 seasons of build-up that would've been satisfactory. (For example, aliens would have a stupid answer). But I can see why the mystical (and ultimately part existential/part nihilistic) ending pissed some viewers off. 

The actor playing Hurley (Jorge Garcia) did podcats towards the end with other actors as guest stars. It was very interesting to hear things from the actors' point of view for each episode. Michael Emerson (Ben) always gave such well-thought out answers in podcasts and interviews (like JMo does). I really enjoyed all the theorizing, podcasts, and desperately waiting for Doc Jensen's episode reviews to drop. Ah...nostalgia...

Edited April 11, 2017 by Rumsy4

[oncebluethrone]

I watched almost the first half of the first season of Lost before deciding to drop it in the middle of the Naveen Andrews episode. The episodes before that one were boring me and this one wasn't much better. I hadn't really begun to like any of the characters very much. I sort of shipped Kate and the doctor (Jack or something), but wasn't invested in them enough to continue watching something that was boring me. The side characters were okay. I think the biggest problem I had with the show was that my curiosity of why it was so popular and my desire for spoilers made me look up how it ended before I had even started watching it. In regards to Once, I fell in love with the show and characters almost immediately. From the first episode, I knew it would become a favorite show of mine, let alone my absolute favorite show of all time. I found Emma to be a strong, confident, beautiful, young woman who could run in heels, but hid behind her walls and protected herself with a red leather jacket and that she needed love and hope and protection. Henry was that first spark of hope for her with his cute demeanor and unwavering belief in Emma. The first introduction of Snowing was perfect and I was shipping them by the third episode. The EQ was an evil badass who interrupted a wedding and had great one liners and cursed an entire land. And Rumple, he was creepy as all get out. Each season has added more characters I love or love to hate (Pan, Cora, Cruella, Black Fairy) and the ever evolving story lines have kept me on my toes for the majority of the show's almost-six seasons.

Edited April 11, 2017 by oncebluethrone

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

All my favs in LOST have been non-main characters like Hurley, Desmond, Penny, Sayid, Charlie, etc.. I first disliked Juliet, but later ended up loving her character. Same with Ben, though I can't say I love the character. I couldn't stand either Jack or Kate until the final seasons, when I finally started tolerating to somewhat liking them. Locke started to exasperate me pretty soon into the Show. I found Sawyer highly entertaining, even when I sometimes disliked his behavior. Sawyer became quite sympathetic towards the end. 

I don't even mind the most hated side characters all that much. Probably because they don't absorb all the screentime outside their centrics and the plot does not constantly revolve around their feelings. I hate Michael with the fire of a thousand suns, but at least his redeemable moments are better balanced with the rest of his screentime. With Jack or Kate, they get a "brief flicker of light, amidst an ocean of darkness", as Rumple would say. They drive the plot the most, and nearly all the other characters are slaves to their decisions. They're leaders because the writers want them to be, not because they deserve it. Emma and Regina tend to fall in the same boat, because they're leads as well, but I've enjoyed their characters more. They don't bother me as much. (But they still do bother me.)

Quote

Charlotte something who was helping Charles Widmore.

Are you talking about Rebecca Mader's Charlotte, or that girl Zoey in S6?

Edited April 11, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

I actually consider Jack similar to Emma.  They were both reluctant leaders.  It made sense that they would look to Jack, as the doctor, and to Locke, as the producer of food.  I guess I was one of the few who actually liked Jack.  I liked Kate too.  But as I said, I pretty much liked everyone by the end of their run.

[Rumsy4]

5 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

Are you talking about Rebecca Mader's Charlotte, or that girl Zoey in S6?

Oops. I meant Zoey. I did like Charlotte well enough. And I can't believe I forgot to mention my freighter favs Faraday and Miles. I also liked the helicopter pilot. Richard Alpert was pretty well fleshed out towards to end too. Ab Aeterno is another favorite episode. 

Even though LOST was an ensemble Show, it never felt diluted out by the many guest and recurring cast. The constant barrage of guest stars in ONCE do dilute the show, and take away from the mains' screentime. The same way, no one character "took over" LOST the way Regina has with ONCE. And they gave us lots of "kitchen-sink" and fun moments. It wasn't relentlessly bleak or depressing. 

Funnily enough apparently Eddy wanted to write stories for the all the redshirts like Frogurt, and ended up penning the Frogurt mobisode. Even back then, he was distracted by irrelevancies. :-p 

Edited April 12, 2017 by Rumsy4

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

The same way, no one character "took over" LOST the way Regina has with ONCE.

I would argue Jack or Locke did at different times.

[Camera One]

Overall, though, I agree with Rumsy that "Lost" did a good job with balance even though certain characters did have more centrics than others.  It was when they stopped giving worthwhile subplots to supporting characters in mid-Season 5 that I felt it jumped the shark.  Spoiler alert, but in Season 6, Sayid and Claire were basically shells/zombies, Sun and Jin's only lines were "Where's ____", and even Kate and Sawyer were basically just spinning their wheels.   It is sad how they completely forgot that the ensemble was what made the show great.  

In comparison, "Once" dropped their supporting characters by the end of 2A or before.  Red, Granny, Dwarves, Gepetto, Blue, Archie, etc. might as well have been extras.

[Rumsy4]

26 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

I would argue Jack or Locke did at different times.

Jack vs Locke/Science vs Faith was kind-of the central conflict of the Show. And Jack was the central protagonist. Even if I found him almost unwatchable at times (like early Season 2), I didn't think the focus on him was irrelevant. OTOH, for example, with the split queen plot, Lana's screen-time is off the charts this season, and it's done zero to advance any storylines or charatcers. 

God, yes, Zombie!Claire and squirrel-baby was probably the worst plot idea of LOST. It was godawful. There was also too much of the Charles Widmore crap towards the end. Instead of introducing a whole submarine full of new characters, they should have focused on the ones they already had. LOST wasn't a perfect Show by any means, but I think it was unique for that time (and even now, one might argue), diverse, chaotic, entertaining, and for good or bad, changed the way people use social media to interact with TV shows and the people in-charge of running it. 

[Camera One]

These are the lessons A&E never learned from "Lost".  They brought Claire back for Season 6, but it was obvious they were not thinking about her character development or lackthereof.  The squirrel baby was meant as shocking twist... very similar to how "Once" is written.  

There were also the Season 2 problems, where they basically had to revert all the characters back, so they could re-learn the same lesson all over again (maybe because the Writers didn't have a long-range plan thinking the show would be cancelled).  This made characters like Jack, Locke, Sawyer, Kate, etc. particularly abrasive (even Charlie got that horrible episode "Fire+Water").  Surprisingly, at least for me, the Writers found their legs eventually and allowed the characters to continue developing.  This was something they were unable to do on "Once" past Season 3.

They also didn't learn from "Lost" the limitations of flashbacks, and exacerbated the issue by going back to the exact same time periods over and over again (eg. Regina hunting Snow) until it actually undermined the story being told (like how could Regina not have killed Snow after attempt #5000?).  

So what this tells me is A&E couldn't see the problems that "Lost" had.  Just like they are completely blind to "Once Upon a Time"'s flaws.  I have no doubt they are actually proud of Season 6.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

Jack vs Locke/Science vs Faith was kind-of the central conflict of the Show.

That's probably my problem with it. The Science vs Faith plot grates on me. I'm not saying it was written poorly, but in the end it became too black and white.

Edited April 12, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

It doesn't bother me per se, but it wasn't a balanced argument.  Basically, by the end of the show, Jack was wrong and he had to rely on faith, as if that were a good thing.  I hate Jacob and MIB.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Camera One

[CCTC]

29 minutes ago, Rumsy4 said:

God, yes, Zombie!Claire and squirrel-baby was probably the worst plot idea of LOST

I don't remember this at all.  Did Claire keep saying there was good in the squirrel-baby?   I just realized there are quite a few story lines that I have no recollection how they actually ended.  I think I have forgotten a lot of the sixth season especially.

Lost probably should have ended when Jack etc. made it back to the island -- have a few episodes to wrap it up one they returned.  By stretching it for another year they introduced the time jumping which never made a ton of sense, and it seemed like they throwing things against the wall until they could finish it off.  

I think Lost probably had 4 decent years.  Season 1, 3 (after the initial group of episodes), 4, and most of 5.  I do think they did a good job of fixing the problems of season 2 and then producing a couple of good seasons after that.  I thought the arcs for season 3 and 4 worked well on their own.

Unpopular opinion, but I was ok with the finale.  It was not perfect and I would not say I necessarily loved it, but there were some nice moments.  For some reason, I found the dog lying next to Jack touching.   I also did not have high expectations, because the show was pretty convoluted by that time, and I knew that there was not really going to be a good explanation for the island itself.  

I liked Lost at the time, but have hardly rewatched any of it.  I did however rewatch the pilot episode.  That first episode really was good television.

Edited April 12, 2017 by CCTC

[Camera One]

5 minutes ago, CCTC said:

I don't remember this at all.  Did Claire keep saying there was good in the squirrel-baby?   I just realized there are quite a few story lines that I have no recollection how they actually ended.

No, Claire was just crazy.  She hardly had any screentime after that.  Which made her return pointless.

Quote

Lost probably should have ended when Jack etc. made it back to the island -- have a few episodes to wrap it up one they returned.  By stretching it for another year they introduced the time jumping which never made a ton of sense, and it seemed like they throwing things against the wall until they could finish it off.  

I loved the time-jumping in 5A, actually.  I wish "Once" did more of those off-the-wall sci-fi things, for multiple episodes.  

Quote

I think Lost probably had 4 decent years.  Season 1, 3 (after the initial group of episodes), 4, and most of 5.  I do think they did a good job of fixing the problems of season 2 and then producing a couple of good seasons after that.  I thought the arcs for season 3 and 4 worked well on their own.

For me, I really liked it until mid-Season 5.  I think the episode that jumped the shark for me was "He's Our You".  From that episode on, I feel it didn't really care about the characters, just the plot.

Quote

Unpopular opinion, but I was ok with the finale.  It was not perfect and I would not say I necessarily loved it, but there were some nice moments.  For some reason, I found the dog lying next to Jack touching.   I also did not have high expectations, because the show was pretty convoluted by that time.  

I was fine with the finale too.  I actually preferred many of the flashsideways in Season 6 to what actually happened on the Island.  Maybe that's an unpopular opinion.

Quote

I liked Lost at the time, but have hardly rewatched any of it.  I did however rewatch the pilot episode.  That first episode really was good television.

I've rewatched up to mid-Season 5.  I think it had good rewatch value.  Unlike "Once", those alternate flashes actually kept things fresh.  And for at least the first 5.5 seasons, they continued to give subplots to the supporting characters like Sayid, Sun, Jin, etc.  And when they brought a guest star on, they actually used them, giving them meaty material with emotion and fun character moments with the other characters.  Unlike "Once", where Tinkerbelle comes back, says the exact same thing she said in 3A and then leaves.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

20 minutes ago, Camera One said:

So what this tells me is A&E couldn't see the problems that "Lost" had.

They probably were chafing at the bit in the LOST writers' room, and felt they could have done it so much better. lol Once they became showrunners themselves, they could let loose.

Quote

Basically, by the end of the show, Jack was wrong and he had to rely on faith.

I personally do not subscribe to the mystical existentialism LOST pandered, but I felt that in-universe it fit right in with the themes introduced into the Show right from the start. All I want is for a story to make some sense in-universe. And OUAT never does. ONCE is disingenuous in its morality, and the writers don't give a flip about continuity or consistency. They're dishonest storytellers in that they don't respect their own craft. In season 6, they've completely derailed their own Show. It's like A&E wanted to deconstruct their charatcers and turn them into caricatures of themselves. 

4 minutes ago, Camera One said:

I loved the time-jumping in 5A, actually.  

I did too. I loved all the Daniel Faraday and Desmond timey wimey stuff particularly. The time-travel was also a clever way to do flashbacks by putting the main charatcers right back in the past in the story as it was happening.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Rumsy4

[InsertWordHere]

1 hour ago, Rumsy4 said:

I did too. I loved all the Daniel Faraday and Desmond timey wimey stuff particularly. The time-travel was also a clever way to do flashbacks by putting the main charatcers right back in the past in the story as it was happening.

Same. I adored the time jumping. This right here is my favorite thing about LOST. I don't believe A&E are anywhere near as clever at time travel as Lindelof and Cuse were, and I think that's putting it lightly. I'd include regular old linear timing and pacing too. A&E would have been content with a 6'2" 10 year old Walt instead of removing him from the screen as the LOST showrunners chose to. I actually am glad Henry hasn't been removed completely and it doesn't bother me that much that he's clearly not 13 years old, but it does bother me that the writers seem to have completely forgotten what year their characters are supposed to be in.

Also, thanks for bringing up Miles. He was definitely one of the more entertaining later season arrivals. 

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

No, Claire was just crazy.  She hardly had any screentime after that.  Which made her return pointless.

I remember being disappointed that they didn't do much with the Claire/Jack connection they had set up. I was more interested in that than in Jack's romances.  

I also would like to add my vote in with those who liked/didn't mind the finale. 

[Camera One]

10 minutes ago, InsertWordHere said:

A&E would have been content with a 6'2" 10 year old Walt instead of removing him from the screen as the LOST showrunners chose to. I actually am glad Henry hasn't been removed completely and it doesn't bother me that much that he's clearly not 13 years old, but it does bother me that the writers seem to have completely forgotten what year their characters are supposed to be in. 

Me too.  I'm glad Henry is on the show (don't know if anyone else other than us would agree, LOL).  I agree that the problem is how A&E hasn't even bothered to explain Henry's age, when there has been ample opportunity and methods to do so.  That contributes to their weaknesses in worldbuilding.

Walt was one of the characters whose handling disappointed me on "Lost".  They could easily have explained how/why he rapidly aged.  I know most people loved Michael's shocking twist involvement in the murders of S2, but I hated it.  I think Michael/Walt had a lot of room for growth.  The kid actor wanted to come back so badly, but all he got was a role in the epilogue, and a few cameos here and there.  

I don't know if this is a good thing but "Lost" killed off lots of characters who still had a ton of potential.  Whereas "Once" has many characters who could show up but many have little potential because they were so badly developed. 

Edited April 12, 2017 by Camera One

[InsertWordHere]

3 minutes ago, Camera One said:

Walt was one of the characters whose handling disappointed me on "Lost".

Oh, it was definitely sloppily done, especially since one of the first season's biggest mysteries was what was going on with Walt. Like you said, they could have explained his growth as some sort of effect of the island, or even recast the actor. I really would love to know what the original plan was for his character.

I just get a chuckle imagining how A&E would write for a 10 year old Walt who's already taller than Sawyer. 

I also agree with you about Michael's murders. 

This discussion has also brought to mind Mr. Eko, one of my favorite side characters who also didn't get to live up to his full potential. 

[Rumsy4]

54 minutes ago, InsertWordHere said:

This discussion has also brought to mind Mr. Eko, one of my favorite side characters who also didn't get to live up to his full potential. 

I was disappointed about Mr. Eko's demise too. I believe the showrunners gave the actor Adewale a lot of creative freedom to develop his character, but there were some pretty severe personality clashes between Adewale and Terry O'Quinn (Locke) behind the scenes. I guess in the end they decided his character didn't work out. I wonder what role he would have played in the Show if he had stayed. I think some of the intent behind his role went into the workings of Ben and Richard Alpert. 

Edited April 12, 2017 by Rumsy4

[Camera One]

So the story that he hated Hawaii was not true?  I was disappointed he didn't come back for the finale over pay.  

One positive of the final season and the final episode of "Lost" was how many old characters they brought back, and a lot of them were really fun to see.  That's one reason why I wanted a proper final season for "Once".  Of course, there's no guarantee they would actually use the cameos properly, but this show is so hit and miss, so at least some of them will be good.  Heck, I wouldn't even mind if they ripped off "Lost" and did flashsideways with "might-have-been" versions of the fairy tales we saw in Season 1 episodes with the various supporting characters, and also stories from guests from S2-S5.  Or a House of Mouse big battle between all the villains and all the heroes from seasons past.  It could have been a fun farewell tour.  And yes, I say this knowing that it's TSTW and we'd probably instead get an Evil Queen/Rumple Festival for 22 episodes.

Another example I can think of for how by Season 6, "Lost" had sacrificed plot and twists for character was in that "Did the bomb work?" tease, which led to a few boring flashsideways which didn't cover new ground because they were trying to trick us that the bomb worked.  Kate's episode was the biggest victim because it was the one after the premiere, when the charade was still there.  However, Jack, Ben, Locke and Sawyer I think all got significantly different flashsideways lives, which provided some new insight into their characters.  But they really couldn't bring back their interest in writing for Sayid, Sun and Jin, who all got really badly written flashsideways.  

Edited April 12, 2017 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

11 minutes ago, Camera One said:

 And yes, I say this knowing that it's TSTW and we'd probably instead get an Evil Queen/Rumple Festival for 22 episodes.

With the inevitable reappearances of Cora, Pan, and Cruella. 

[Camera One]

I watched "Ever After: A Cinderella Story" tonight.  I wasn't a huge fan of Drew Barrymore in the 90s, so I never got around to watching it.  

But I really liked it, in some ways more than the Disney live-action.  I liked that Cinderella and the Prince had many more scenes together, and she was more bookish like Belle plus had other goals.  It was a change to see one of the stepsisters being nice.  The Evil Stepmother was more fun to watch than Cate Blanchett's version, and got her comeuppance in the end.  I did think the movie faltered near the end with Cinderella never getting the truth out to be frustrating to watch, and the Prince acted like a jerk when he rejected her.  I almost thought he was irredeemable when he did that.  But I still ended up enjoying the ending, so that's good.   Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance era was interesting to see as well.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

Ever After is one of my favorite movies ever! I love the scene where Cinderella rescues the prince from the bandits. Glad you enjoyed it. :-)

[KingOfHearts]

Watching Aladdin for the first time ever. It's the only classic Disney movie I haven't seen. Aladdin and Jasmine are completely different people from their OUAT counterparts. They're just absolute opposites. I am surprised by how humorous it is throughout, even without the Genie. The style is also dark in places for a Disney film. Overall, it's very engaging and I'm sad OUAT never really took advantage of it. The only things they did right were casting Karen David as Jasmine and casting Oded Fehr/Naveen Andrews as Jafar.

Edited April 15, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

Wow, you've never seen Aladdin before?  Usually, the first you see makes the biggest impression.  I'm surprised you didn't fall in love with Once's Aladdin The Failed Savior and Jasmine aka #SaveAgrabah.  

I agree the movie is very funny, it moves at a really clipping pace and the characters do have some development despite being cartoons.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

A&E took the rules of magic from it, it seems. At least the ones about making someone fall in love with you and raising the dead. Just swap killing someone for time travel.

And dang. Oded Fehr just embodies Jafar, but makes him even better. Why couldn't he be the Big Bad of 6B? We could have gotten a Wonderland crossover.

Edited April 15, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

I was moved to dust off my "Aladdin" DVD and watched half of it just now.  Having just watched "Ever After" today, both of them involves someone dressing up as higher class, and lying because they assume they won't be accepted for who they are.

To me, the Jafar in the movie can't be beat... his narrow face is just so evil.  He rivals Maleficent and The Evil Queen (the animated versions).  I wasn't fully sold on Oded Fehr yet.  Though no way he wouldn't beat Gideon, The Evil Queen or Hyde as Big Bad.  He was way more Jafar-ish than Naveen Andrews, even though he was one of my favorites from "Lost". 

I guess we'll see how The Black Fairy fares.  Though it's a shame they didn't save Maleficent for The Black Fairy.  This season could have been 6A Aladdin/Jasmine/Jafar and then The Final Battle with Sleeping Beauty and Maleficent.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

I really liked Naveen's Jafar as well, but more as an original character than a portrayal of the animated version. He brought his own kind of personality into the role, and it was more wooby than simply power hungry. Which is fine, because he was never "misunderstood", just tragically evil. Oded's performance is straight up nefarious, which is awesome on its own merit. Naveen's is colder and more serious. 

The pop culture references really seem to work in Aladdin. Usually in a period film, unless it's some sort of spoof, I find it very off-putting. A lot of films have tried to replicate that sense of humor but they usually turn out exceptionally cringey and dated.

Edited April 15, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Shanna Marie]

It would have been nice if they could have used the Genie in the Once version, at least in the flashbacks. They made a reference to him, but we never saw him or how he fit into the story. I know there's the Robin Williams issue, but they manage to do a version of the character in the Broadway version, and they could have done it that way. That would have added some humor and life to the story. As it was, both Jasmine and Aladdin were sad sacks. We didn't really get to see them having adventures or being very successful. We just knew that Aladdin had the Savior Shakes and gave up being a Savior, and Jasmine felt like she failed her people by being conned by Jafar. They managed to take one of the more fun Disney storybook movies and make it boring and depressing.

[Camera One]

36 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

It would have been nice if they could have used the Genie in the Once version, at least in the flashbacks. They made a reference to him, but we never saw him or how he fit into the story. 

The way they wrote the two Aladdin/Jasmine flashbacks, I actually don't see how the Genie COULD fit in anywhere.  That's how poorly they thought about it.  Both the characters remembered the Genie fondly but Aladdin and Jasmine parted ways at the end of first first flashback and the second flashback seemed to have occurred soon after.  

As you said in a previous post, they made both Aladdin and Jasmine quite unsympathetic and completely lacking in depth.  In the animated movie, they included a scene where he gives the stolen bread to kids AND defended them even though he got whipped.  In "Once", Aladdin was a total loser low-level thief, with zero attempts to reform himself until now?  In the movie, Jasmine had never left the palace walls, and we saw her leave for the first time so we can see why she felt she was trapped but also without much knowledge of the world outside.  In "Once", they jumped ahead and Jasmine was already out and about and sort of backing Aladdin into a corner to help her.  After everything that had happened, she was still acting the same way in Storybrooke looking for anyone other than herself to save Agrabah.  The Oracle was horrible Seer considering how little she knew.  We had no idea who was the brave horseman who went to warn Aladdin (who cares about the redshirts, eh?).  They didn't sell why Jasmine and Aladdin didn't continue their relationship at the end of their first flashback other than "duty", which they didn't even stress. 

Basically, all they took was Aladdin = thief, Jasmine = spoiled princess, and that's it.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

They didn't sell why Jasmine and Aladdin didn't continue their relationship at the end of their first flashback other than "contrived angst", which they didn't even stress. 

FTFY.

[Camera One]

On this show, Aladdin was a coward.  Hercules was a coward.  Rapunzel was a coward.  Prince Charming was a coward.  Pinocchio was a selfish coward.    Wendy betrayed her friend.  Aurora and Philip betrayed their friends.   Belle chose a rock over a girl's life.   Cinderella couldn't care less her fairy godmother died.  Snow kidnapped a baby and separated it from her mother.  King Arthur was evil.  Merlin was stupid.  The Blue Fairy was useless.  Mulan became a low-level thief.  Merida was abrasive as hell.  Jasmine was a whiny loser. 

The cross promotion with Disney is genius.  The only "heroes" who didn't seem ruined were Ariel, Elsa and Anna.  I'm thinking A&E's "cul de sac" is more like a traffic accident waiting to happen.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

I'm thinking A&E's "cul de sac" is more like a traffic accident waiting to happen.

LOL.

Quote

The only "heroes" who didn't seem ruined were Ariel, Elsa and Anna.

Good people who don't have big, tragic backstories just don't exist in A&E's world. Nice characters with decent lives don't make for much drama, I know, but they need to be shown to exist, otherwise their universe is too unbelievable. If everyone was a serial killer, that wouldn't make serial killers very interesting or intimidating. If the abnormal is normal, then it's not abnormal.

Edited April 15, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

2 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

The pop culture references really seem to work in Aladdin. Usually in a period film, unless it's some sort of spoof, I find it very off-putting. A lot of films have tried to replicate that sense of humor but they usually turn out exceptionally cringey and dated.

I was thinking about that comment, and how on paper, I wasn't a huge fan of the over-the-top Genie.  But when I rewatched half of it last night, it really did work.  The character had enough heart in him to work well, and of course, Robin Williams was very funny.  

When they tried it in other Disney films, it was often too jarring.  The biggest example was Mushu in Mulan.  He had funny moments, but the Eddie Murphy stuff felt detached from the dramatic elements.  Ditto for the Gargoyles in "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" (with the guy from Seinfeld) and even Danny Devito (trainer) and James Wood (Hades) a little from "Hercules".   I felt similarly for example with Jim Carrey in "A Series of Unfortunate Events"... sometimes, a comic presence could overpower everything else.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

and even Danny Devito a little from "Hercules". 

Hercules was the most obvious example of pop culture references failing miserably under the Disney banner. Hades himself was fine, but all the 90s references elsewhere were jarring. Making ancient Greece look like Las Vegas was a very odd creative choice. The movie itself has a an epic, dramatic story, but it's undermined by the forced (and sometimes awkward) comic relief. I'm pretty sure they were banking off of Aladdin's success.

Edited April 15, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Shanna Marie]

I think with Aladdin the pop-culture references worked because it was built into the character -- you could imagine that a genie would have knowledge spanning eras, past, present and future. With those other characters, it was jarring because you were wondering why they would say that and how they would know. And because it was built into the character, that also wove it into the plot. Plus, Robin Williams was being very Robin Williams, but he still bothered to create and play a character. When Eddie Murphy does animated voices, they're pretty much all the same and they blur together. It's very much Eddie Murphy, not the character.

[Camera One]

Aladdin and Cinderella in some ways are a gender reverse of each other.  They both have a great view of the castle/palace.  They're both friends with animals.  They both have no parents.  They both encounter a magical power who can grant their wish, which allow them to experience nobility for a short time.  Unlike Ariel, Belle, etc., their goal isn't really to see the world, it's just to escape their lowly existence.