OUAT vs. Other Fairy Tales: Compare & Contrast

[jhlipton]

On 8/22/2017 at 11:52 AM, Writing Wrongs said:

When things don't make sense, the writers say "The island did it", like "magic did it". 

The reason I tuned out of Lost was that during the first season, they specifically said the island didn't do it!  The whole point of the zoo was so they could say "See!  Polar bears!!!!!"

[Shanna Marie]

Going back to the Game of Thrones comparisons, I found an article about a study involving it that made me think of discussions we have here. They had Apple Watch users use the heartrate monitor to track what was going on with them as they watched episodes of Game of Thrones. They found that it was the character interactions more than the big action sequences that got the biggest heart rate spikes. So, it's not necessarily the Big, Shocking Moments or the Plot, Plot, Plot that gets the biggest responses from viewers, but rather the character moments and the payoffs to plot things.

It would be interesting to do a similar study with Once. I suspect the audience would respond to different things than the writers expect.

[KingOfHearts]

Oddly enough, I love Shrek 2's take on fairy tales. It's much more comedic and satirical than OUAT, but I have to hand it to the worldbuilding. It's awesome that all the villains hang out at a pub called The Poison Apple, that the Fairy Godmother is a shady Rumple of sorts, and that all the famous princesses live close by in glamorous lifestyles. It does the adaptation well, parodying but not undermining. It is interesting that mixing fairy tales has been a trend for a long time. Some iterations are better than others. A good chunk of it, in my opinion, has to do with self-awareness. OUAT really lacks that.

Edited August 29, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Rumsy4]

Looks like the GoT writers pulled a twist (the Sansa/Arya plot) without leave any clues beforehand. Some viewers guessed it, but not becasue of any indication in the Show. This is such a hallmark of lazy writing! You have to put in the clues, otherwise what is the point? Why are mediocre writers so obsessed with plot twists that they sacrifice good writing to achieve the surprise "gotcha"? Viewers like to know they were smart enough to figure something out from clues, or can catch during rewatch/in retrospect. Westworld pulled a neat twist at the end of last season, which going back over the Show makes sense from clues scattered throughout. It didn't come out of nowhere becasue "plot twist". 

A&E's "Zelena was Marian all along" will always be the worst example of the twist that came out of nowhere, and for which there were no clues planted beforehand. Sure, some people guessed it, but there was nothing in the writing to support that idea. 

Edited August 29, 2017 by Rumsy4

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

A&E's "Zelena was Marian all along" will always be the worst example of the twist that came out of nowhere, and for which there were no clues planted beforehand. Sure, some people guessed it, but there was nothing in the writing to support that idea. 

That speculation took place largely before 4A, and even then, it was a pretty crazy theory. I had lost hope for it after Marian did absolutely nothing suspicious.

[Rumsy4]

6 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

I had lost hope for it after Marian did absolutely nothing suspicious.

Zelena masquerading as Marian showed a lot of restraint from her typical "muahaha" style. There could have been a million ways of undermining Regina as Marian, and she did nothing. 

[Writing Wrongs]

Why was Regina able to take her heart when she was frozen? I thought she said she had a protection spell on it? And why did it not have any black in it?

Too many questions. LOL

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

And why did it not have any black in it?

Replying in All Seasons.

[Trini]

8 hours ago, Rumsy4 said:

A&E's "Zelena was Marian all along" will always be the worst example of the twist that came out of nowhere, and for which there were no clues planted beforehand. Sure, some people guessed it, but there was nothing in the writing to support that idea. 

In order for them to plant clues, they would have had to be planning the twist for some time beforehand. I'm not at all convinced that they were.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Trini

[ParadoxLost]

5 hours ago, Rumsy4 said:

Zelena masquerading as Marian showed a lot of restraint from her typical "muahaha" style. There could have been a million ways of undermining Regina as Marian, and she did nothing. 

Undermining Regina wouldn't have even tipped their hand on a Marian is Zelena twist.  Because it would have made sense that Marian would have a problem with Robin and Regina given Regina would have executed her except for Captain Swan time travel.  Its a natural reaction that they could have played up or even overplayed and it would still make sense that it was Marian.  Then a Zelena reveal could show the ulterior motive and still be "shocking" twist.

I think everyone gave up on the theory because Marian was doing such a good job of emulating Snow's baffling reactions to Regina.

There was no way they had that planned out ahead of time.  That was damage control on Robin/Regina relationship and that they missed the obvious problems of how they brought Marian into the story.

You know, I do wonder what OUAT would have been like if they had a limited seasons that wrapped before they got any feedback like GoT.

[KingOfHearts]

I've been watching this series on YouTube that takes apart all the writing mistakes and plot holes of Lost. It's several hours long. A lot of the problems it addresses are very similar to OUAT's issues - characters acting out of character because of the plot, dropped storylines, the writers making things up as they go along, etc. The producers of Lost were just better at burying the flaws for a longer period of time and distracting the audience. OUAT is much more forthright.

A couple of funny things were mentioned in the reviews. First, there was an inconsistency with Charlotte's age. Ben claimed in S4 that she was born in 1979, but in S5, we saw her as a child on the island before that, and she was supposedly born in 1971. When Cuse and Lindeloff were asked about this, they blamed Bex and said she wanted the year changed so she wouldn't have a reputation of being older than she was. Bex was offended by what they said, and reported that it never happened, and that she would never want to change a script like that. After she called them out, the producers confessed to lying about it, then pinned it on their continuity expert, who wanted to align Charlotte's age with Bex's. It was obvious the writers had made a mistake and didn't think about the possibilities of time travel in the following season.

The second thing funny thing was that G.R.R. Martin, in regard to how he wanted to end the GoT books, said he didn't want to "pull a Lost", which angered Lindeloff.

The Lost producers really remind me of A&E. They didn't take responsibility for their mistakes, they pushed people to keep watching by saying *all* mysteries would be revealed, and towards the end they got very pretentious. 

It's always fun to watch the episode where Ana Lucia and Libby get shot with someone who's watching for the first time. My first timer loved both the characters, but thankfully they're also an avid GoT fan, so they knew not to get too attached. Their facial expressions were still priceless, though. They legitimately thought Michael was going to walk in and kill Ben.

Edited August 30, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

I generally hate shocking deaths.  I hated that one in particular because I didn't buy that Michael's character would do that and I still don't.  Still, I did find "Lost"'s shocking deaths almost all poignant and dramatically successful and touching.  Whereas something like "Once" killing off Robin Hood worked on no level.  

I do give Damon Lindelof a little more leeway than A&E considering he came on with certain things already established and he has acknowledged they came up with stuff in Season 1 with no belief that the show would last.  So I never expected everything to fall into a neat package in the end.  They still made mistakes but at least they had a continuity guy.  In addition, at least they did craft a final season with an attempt to bring some closure (a least a little bit) to a huge number of the dead characters.

But then again, I watched "Lost" ultimately for the characters, and I did enjoy them for 5.5 seasons.  I think viewers who watched mostly for "the answers" would definitely be disappointed by the end.  The "Lost" headwriters also did not have an agenda of whitewashing a particular character's actions and pulling everyone down to their level.  I think they did a reasonably good job of explaining why people continued to work with Ben, whereas there is no reason why anyone should even stand beside Rumple at this point.  He ceased to be a "love to hate" character a long time ago.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

I generally hate shocking deaths.  I hated that one in particular because I didn't buy that Michael's character would do that and I still don't.  Still, I did find "Lost"'s shocking deaths almost all poignant and dramatically successful and touching.  Whereas something like "Once" killing off Robin Hood worked on no level.  

Graham's death was probably closest to a Lost-style death. Ana Lucia and Libby's deaths just felt like they were done for shock value and moving the plot forward. While Ana Lucia's character arc came to an end, tied up with a neat little bow, her death at the hands of Michael was very meh. It was like how OUAT would kill off characters just to get rid of them and introduce new ones. Libby was only tacked on for emotional impact.

Quote

In addition, at least they did craft a final season with an attempt to bring some closure (a least a little bit) to a huge number of the dead characters.

I think satisfaction with Lost's ending hinges entirely on how you feel about the flash sideways. If you feel they don't matter, then it's a total waste of time. However, if it's a poignant conclusion for the characters, it's good entertainment. I'm sort of in the middle. I thought too much time was spent on them for what was very inconsequential and had no real stakes. But, then again, I'm more interested in the plot. I never really got too attached to any of the characters.

Quote

 I think they did a reasonably good job of explaining why people continued to work with Ben, whereas there is no reason why anyone should even stand beside Rumple at this point.  He ceased to be a "love to hate" character a long time ago.

This is one thing I love about Lost - they do "love to hate" well. I actually hate half the characters on the show. I really do. But that doesn't mean they're badly written. (There are many fans who love them.) I can appreciate Lost as a work of art because it draws a wide range of strong emotions out of me - anger, sadness, satisfaction. All OUAT does is make me frustrated. I wouldn't give a flip if all the main characters died in a horrific freak accident. 

Edited August 30, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Rumsy4]

IMO, LOST gets unfairly blamed for not answering questions. The fact is that they actually did answer most of the questions set up in the Show. The only few unanswered questions/dropped plots that I can remember off the top of my head were who shot the raft/boat when they were flashing through time, and the dropped plot about Charlie's ring that Sun picked-up from Aaron's crib. Certain viewers may not have liked some of the answers given, but that doesn't mean they weren't answered. Lbr, what the Island was could never have been answered in a way to satisfy everyone. Aliens would have been a dumb answer. Some kind of futuristic time-travel scenario might have worked, but it would have not fit with the themes of the Show. It was always going to have a quasi-spiritual ending. 

Lindeloff was more hurt and upset about GRRM's comments. He and Carlton said they respected GRRM a lot, and were disappointed about his comments. At least they finished their work, while GRRM has left his readers hanging for years, and they have to rely on the mediocre adaptation to get some closure. 

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

IMO, LOST gets unfairly blamed for not answering questions. The fact is that they actually did answer most of the questions set up in the Show. The only few unanswered questions/dropped plots that I can remember off the top of my head were who shot the raft/boat when they were flashing through time, and the dropped plot about Charlie's ring that Sun picked-up from Aaron's crib. Certain viewers may not have liked some of the answers given, but that doesn't mean they weren't answered. Lbr, what the Island was could never have been answered in a way to satisfy everyone. Aliens would have been a dumb answer. Some kind of futuristic time-travel scenario might have worked, but it would have not fit with the themes of the Show. It was always going to have a quasi-spiritual ending. 

I've never really felt like they didn't answer enough questions. But they did start introducing mysteries just for the sake of them, willy-nilly. The producers went from saying everything was grounded in science to doing whatever they wanted. It was like A&E saying they were never going to do time travel, only for them to end up doing it anyway. 

[Camera One]

1 minute ago, KingOfHearts said:

But they did start introducing mysteries just for the sake of them, willy-nilly.

On paper, that's horrible writing.  But strangely, this is one of the shows that gets away with it.  For me, the journey was more enjoyable than the destination.  When I rewatch, I actually don't care that stuff might not go anywhere.  It's like the old Myst video game.  I feel like I'm just exploring an interesting place.

I don't get that with "Once" at all, even though we're supposed to be in this fascinating, magical fairytale world.  I didn't feel like Camelot was any more than the 2-3 greenscreen CGI backgrounds and the usual forest.  Ditto for Neverland.  I was never intrigued by the setting.  The most successful was probably the Underworld.

Quote

The producers went from saying everything was grounded in science to doing whatever they wanted. It was like A&E saying they were never going to do time travel, only for them to end up doing it anyway. 

I wish they had stuck with that.  They did, all the way into Season 5 since the time travel was based in pseudoscience at least.  They lost me with that cave of light and MIB's origin story.  I pretty much hated all the present-day stuff in the final season.

Did A&E say they would never do time travel?  

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

Did A&E say they would never do time travel?  

I seemed to recall they did some time prior to 3B, and it wasn't just the "rule of magic" thing, either. I can't seem to find the article... this is going to bother me.

Something else interesting I learned - the writers wanted to kill off Jack in the pilot, but the network wanted to keep him on so the show would be more grounded. Reminds me of A&E wanting to kill off Charming.

[Camera One]

It really goes to show how little A&E learned.  They were writing a show about hope and Snow White loses her true love forever.  That completely works against their entire premise.  Why would anyone look forward to the happy endings being brought back if the protagonist will never get her happy ending back?

Edited August 30, 2017 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

37 minutes ago, Camera One said:

It really goes to show how little A&E learned.  They were writing a show about hope and Snow White loses her true love forever.  That completely works against their entire premise.  Why would anyone look forward to the happy endings being brought back if the protagonist will never get her happy ending back?

A&E were couldn't decide if they wanted something hopeful, or something realistic. In the world of quasi-realism, the good guys sometimes die, the villains are sometimes gray, and there's rules in place that prevent ideal results. You can't have both a pure Disney movie and a nitty-gritty drama. They're too opposite extremes. S1 made a compromise in the middle - the flashbacks weren't always peachy cartoons, and the present had little bits of "hope"and magic sprinkled through. Plus, it was self-aware. Emma was the "Jack" of the series. She grounded it. The deeds of the villains were seen as they were and the characters were allowed to say, "Okay, this is kind of ridiculous." You had the dichotomy of Storybrooke and the Enchanted Forest, painted with very different strokes. But, that worked in the show's a favor. A "yin and yang" effect. 

Lost had its own duality going on with its "science vs. faith" theme. Jack vs. Locke, DHARMA vs. the Others. However, I think Jack and Emma both went through a major change that really undermined their characters. They lost their realism and started accepting all the crazy fantasy, because the plot had no longer had room for resistance. Or, rather, the writers lost interest in the conflict. They jumped straight into magical shenanigans because that's what they wanted to do. (OUAT with its magic everywhere, Lost with its Jacob/MiB/Flash sideways mythos.)

Edited August 30, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

20 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

However, I think Jack and Emma both went through a major change that really undermined their characters. They lost their realism and started accepting all the crazy fantasy, because the plot had no longer had room for resistance. 

In that sense, I think the Emma conflict was more clear-cut.  She had to believe in magic because it actually does exist in the universe she was living in.  Her character went through a major change by letting down her patented Walls™ and in doing so accepted love in her life.

On "Lost", I think it was framed in Season 6 that it was a good thing that Jack gained faith over science.  Now, I'm not sure why it was a good thing.  Because it allows him to "let go" by believing that everything happens for a reason?  Maybe it's because the debate is more complex and nebulous.  But I agree that this undermined Jack and not really in a good way.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

Her character went through a major change by letting down her patented Walls™ and in doing so accepted love in her life.

But at the same time she's lying to her fiance, detached from her parents, and unsure of her own destiny. Believing in magic is one thing, but she lost the "realism" that made her special. Her bailbondswoman experience is now useless. No one cares about her knowledge of the real world, because it almost never applies. Her role in the show is just being a punching bag. Her WALLS and skepticism are always seen as a bad thing, even when she has very good reasons for having them.

Quote

On "Lost", I think it was framed in Season 6 that it was a good thing that Jack gained faith over science.  Now, I'm not sure why it was a good thing.  Because it allows him to "let go" by believing that everything happens for a reason?  Maybe it's because the debate is more complex and nebulous.  But I agree that this undermined Jack and not really in a good way.

It was a huge dramatic change just for Locke's death. Jack didn't even really like Locke, but he went from sensible, to suicidal, to believing in a greater purpose, all in a super short span of time. The writers needed Jack to become a man of faith so he could go to the island and do what the plot required without question.

Edited August 30, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

The other thing I don't like about both shows is the question of free will.  Yes, they are able to make choices, but characters are manipulated by external powers to the point where a lot of times, they don't seem to have full free will.  So at times, it makes the characters' own actions a moot point, because the meant-to events will happen regardless.  The characters might as well sing and dance a happy song five minutes before the apocalypse because they'll be caught up in it no matter what.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

Both in LOST, and in ONCE the hero has to give in to "destiny" in order to finally succeed. That's a big volte face from Emma's inspiring "you got to punch back" attitude. At least with Jack, it became obvious that he was a bit unhinged with the stubborn insistence on science even in the face of evidence. But Emma had every reason to be skeptical and cold with her life experiences. But season 6 took it too far with the savior shakes and other crap. Jack had an arc that lasted through the Show. Emma kept repeating hers every season. As did most of the main characters on ONCE.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Rumsy4

[andromeda331]

43 minutes ago, Rumsy4 said:

Both in LOST, and in ONCE the hero has to give in to "destiny" in order to finally succeed. That's a big volte face from Emma's inspiring "you got to punch back" attitude. At least with Jack, it became obvious that he was a bit unhinged with the stubborn insistence on science even in the face of evidence. But Emma had every reason to be skeptical and cold with her life experiences. But season 6 took it too far with the savior shakes and other crap. Jack had an arc that lasted through the Show. Emma kept repeating hers every season. As did most of the main characters on ONCE.

I loved that line from Emma and in the beginning they really seem to be setting it up go that way. She says that to Ashley, and we later see in the episode flashback Ashley/Cinderella questioning the use of magic as they were trying to capture Rumple, that maybe that was the cause of their problems. The biggest magic users Rumple and Regina didn't seem that happy. Rumple lost his son and used magic as a crutch. Regina's father tries to convince her to start over in the second episode during the flashback. If she had done that instead of giving into magic and turning evil she might have been happier. Rumple bringing magic back at the end of season one was seen to be a bad thing and you have Regina trying to quit magic in early season two.  Of course the magic has consequences would have been fun to explore. Rumple's consequence for the Curse could have been Neal's death or doing all of it to find out Neal was dead and had been for a long time. Regina's hitting rock bottom. At least give them real consequences. Then of course they dropped it. Its too bad, I liked those.

[jhlipton]

11 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

 Of course the magic has consequences would have been fun to explore.

That only applied to the heroes.  Villains could (and did) use magic willy-nilly at any time for any purpose without any consequence whatsoever.  Which thoroughly undercut the message.

[Rumsy4]

16 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

It was a huge dramatic change just for Locke's death. Jack didn't even really like Locke, but he went from sensible, to suicidal, to believing in a greater purpose, all in a super short span of time.

He was eaten up with guilt over all the people he had left behind on the Island (including Claire). Those that he could not save. It was not just Locke death, but a bunch of things that finally reached their boiling point over Locke's "suicide". Control issues, and the desire to save everyone was always Jack's weakness, as his father (and later, ex-wife) pointed out. He falls apart off the Island, and is desperately hopeful that going back to the Island will help him regain some sense of purpose. And ultimately, he does sacrifice himself to save the Island, and help Kate et all escape its destruction. Jack will never be a favorite (if fact, I couldn't stand him in seasons 2 and 3), but I do feel that he had a sympathetic arc towards the end. 

[Camera One]

I was watching this live-action production of Mulan acted by kids in China with subtitles that someone put on Youtube.  It's kind of ridiculous, but it was amusing and made me think that even a straight-up re-creation of scenes can sometimes be entertaining.  There are a few Once-esque changes that reminded me that A&E never even bothered to do a proper flashback showing Mulan's backstory.  They could have done half a season on myths from Ancient China and explored the supporting characters of Mulan.  There are themes of family, sacrifice and honor with parallels to the main characters of "Once".

[Rumsy4]

Not a fairy tale by a long shot, but I was comparing the plot of Atonement to the Snow/Regina conflict in OUAT. Spoilers for Atonement ahead. In Atonement, a little girl, Briony, is the cause of "ruining" someone's life. In this case, Briony makes an accusation of sexual assault against a young man (Robbie) towards her cousin. She is believed, and Robbie's life is shattered a result (romance destroyed, he is sent to prison, and he later enlists in the army and dies). As Briony grows up, she comes to believe that she had made a mistake, and thinks that the person who had committed the sexual assault was someone else (Benedict Cumberbatch in an early role). Keira Knightley plays Cecilia, the older sister of Briony and the LI of Robbie. The rest of the movie is about how Briony attempts to make a kind of failed atonement for what she had done in the past. In both cases (Briony and Snow), the young girls were acting for the best, and believed that they had done the right thing. In the case of Briony, there is some implication that she may have had complicated motives and prejudices for accusing Robbie. And yet, she was nothing but a child, and the adults in the situation believed her accusation absolutely without any evidence in support of it. In the case of Snow, she was manipulated by Cora into revealing Regina's secret. If Keira Knightley's character had gone on a vengeance quest against her little sister, it would still have made little sense. And yet, in ONCE, the Show expects us to side with the idea that Snow was an entitled brat who ruined someone's life.

[andromeda331]

2 hours ago, Rumsy4 said:

Not a fairy tale by a long shot, but I was comparing the plot of Atonement to the Snow/Regina conflict in OUAT. Spoilers for Atonement ahead. In Atonement, a little girl, Briony, is the cause of "ruining" someone's life. In this case, Briony makes an accusation of sexual assault against a young man (Robbie) towards her cousin. She is believed, and Robbie's life is shattered a result (romance destroyed, he is sent to prison, and he later enlists in the army and dies). As Briony grows up, she comes to believe that she had made a mistake, and thinks that the person who had committed the sexual assault was someone else (Benedict Cumberbatch in an early role). Keira Knightley plays Cecilia, the older sister of Briony and the LI of Robbie. The rest of the movie is about how Briony attempts to make a kind of failed atonement for what she had done in the past. In both cases (Briony and Snow), the young girls were acting for the best, and believed that they had done the right thing. In the case of Briony, there is some implication that she may have had complicated motives and prejudices for accusing Robbie. And yet, she was nothing but a child, and the adults in the situation believed her accusation absolutely without any evidence in support of it. In the case of Snow, she was manipulated by Cora into revealing Regina's secret. If Keira Knightley's character had gone on a vengeance quest against her little sister, it would still have made little sense. And yet, in ONCE, the Show expects us to side with the idea that Snow was an entitled brat who ruined someone's life.

Yes, they do. Despite the fact they set up the scene showing us that Cora was clearly manipulating Snow and that Snow was trying hard to resist. That's the annoying part. A&E want us to believe certain things. But they never set the scenes up to match. They could had Snow tell Cora out of spite which would make her terrible or have Snow tell her because she wants Regina to be her new stepmother or because she was really hurt seeing Regina kissing someone else when she thought Regina was engaged to her father. They could have had Regina not know about her mother's part in Daniel's death or be lead to believe that Daniel ran off or something only to find out later after she was married that wasn't true. Instead Regina knows Cora killed Daniel, she saw it with her own eyes and she knew Snow was manipulated. Despite what A&E think you can't have a character clearly see someone else committing the murder and know what that person is capable of and BLAME someone else for it. You also can't have that same person standing there when her mother admits to killing Eva and not have reaction to that either and expect people to find her sympathetic. 

[Camera One]

I can only imagine that A&E believed Regina couldn't bring herself to blaming Cora for it because she loved her mother too much.  But I don't think that meshes with her subsequent interactions with Cora, including sending Hook to kill her.  No one has said the obvious.  Did Snow ever point out to Regina that it was her mother who killed Daniel?  

I really disliked "Atonement" and found it really frustrating... I just couldn't warm to Briony at all, or feel anything for her.  So even though the Regina/Snow feud wasn't believable, I'm still glad they didn't make Snow into a vindictive brat.  They should have gone with the angle that Regina had a psychotic break and became obsessed with Snow, something that she could have eventually realized was irrational (and minus all the village massacres).  

[Rumsy4]

13 minutes ago, Camera One said:

I really disliked "Atonement" and found it really frustrating..

I found it frustrating and sort of dislike it too. I think the cinematography was excellent and there was a poetic feel to the movie. I also enjoyed Keira Knightley and James McAvoy's performances (and that green dress!). But the whole of Briony's "atonement" fell flat. Romola Garai is very hit or miss in her roles. The ending was too "meta", and it really took me out of the story. I can make up any ending I want, so what makes any of the story immersive? 

Also, the author of the book had plagiarized swaths of material from another memoir regarding hospital and nursing stuff in WWII, so I could never bring myself to read it.

Edited September 9, 2017 by Rumsy4

[andromeda331]

3 hours ago, Camera One said:

I can only imagine that A&E believed Regina couldn't bring herself to blaming Cora for it because she loved her mother too much.  But I don't think that meshes with her subsequent interactions with Cora, including sending Hook to kill her.  No one has said the obvious.  Did Snow ever point out to Regina that it was her mother who killed Daniel?  

I really disliked "Atonement" and found it really frustrating... I just couldn't warm to Briony at all, or feel anything for her.  So even though the Regina/Snow feud wasn't believable, I'm still glad they didn't make Snow into a vindictive brat.  They should have gone with the angle that Regina had a psychotic break and became obsessed with Snow, something that she could have eventually realized was irrational (and minus all the village massacres).  

Nope, that would fall under the many things Snow should have said at some point to Regina but A&E would never allow. Snow didn't even know Daniel was dead until years later. It wasn't until then she knew the real reason Regina murdered her father and stole everything she had. 

[MadyGirl1987]

13 hours ago, Camera One said:

I can only imagine that A&E believed Regina couldn't bring herself to blaming Cora for it because she loved her mother too much.  But I don't think that meshes with her subsequent interactions with Cora, including sending Hook to kill her.

Honestly, I kinda think Regina blamed Snow because she couldn't confront her mother, who had magic and was powerful. Snow, a kid at the time, was an easy scapegoat. Doesn't make it right, but people do it all the time in the real world; blame and go for the easy target. It's only when Regina has magic and power in her own right that she strikes back at her mother, even if she never seems to really acknowledge she was wrong at targeting Snow and should have been blaming her mother all those years.

[Shanna Marie]

19 hours ago, Camera One said:

I really disliked "Atonement" and found it really frustrating...

For me, it wasn't the characters or anything like that. It was the fakeout. I read the book before I saw the movie, and it gets into the whole story of Robbie at Dunkirk and him getting back to England, and Briony running into him and her sister, and you feel like everything's worked out -- and then it's like a sucker punch to get to the very end of the book and it's like "actually, none of that happened. He died in Dunkirk. But writing this story in which he lives is my way of atoning." I wanted to throw the book across the room (it was a library book, so I just hurled it into the sofa cushions with great force). I wouldn't put it past A&E to pull something like that, and still claim that their story was about hope.

[Camera One]

I actually completely forgot the ending... that was definitely a major reason why I hated it.   I had expected so much since I think it was up for a bunch major awards and yeah, the fakeout also made me want to throw an axe at the TV.

[andromeda331]

6 hours ago, MadyGirl1987 said:

Honestly, I kinda think Regina blamed Snow because she couldn't confront her mother, who had magic and was powerful. Snow, a kid at the time, was an easy scapegoat. Doesn't make it right, but people do it all the time in the real world; blame and go for the easy target. It's only when Regina has magic and power in her own right that she strikes back at her mother, even if she never seems to really acknowledge she was wrong at targeting Snow and should have been blaming her mother all those years.

That would make sense except Regina got rid of her mother before the wedding.  Cora was out of her life and she still targeted Snow for decades. It would have made sense if Cora was still around after the wedding ruining and controlling her life and Regina used Snow as an easier target and/or to learn magic and stuff so she could finally go after Cora.  

[daxx]

Rewatching Smallville, not from the beginning just from the season Lois shows up. I'd forgotten how much I hated Lana and how much a creators favorite she was. Things were really going off the rails until the executive producers were let go around season 7 it was so much better the last couple seasons.

Smallville spoiler below about the Lana character and the creators. Once isn't unique in the exec prods having a favorite.

Spoiler

Then she came back for three episodes in Season 8 with faux-Navy SEAL training and superpowers. It really says something that in the DVD commentary, co-creators Gough and Millar actually declared at one point that "she is the true magic of the show." Eventually it came out that Gough and Millar actually cast Lana before they did the casting for Clark. That is all

Edited September 10, 2017 by daxx
Adding in spoiler

[MadyGirl1987]

2 hours ago, daxx said:

Rewatching Smallville, not from the beginning just from the season Lois shows up. I'd forgotten how much I hated Lana and how much a creators favorite she was. Things were really going off the rails until the executive producers were let go around season 7 it was so much better the last couple seasons.

Smallville spoiler below about the Lana character and the creators. Once isn't unique in the exec prods having a favorite.

  Hide contents

Then she came back for three episodes in Season 8 with faux-Navy SEAL training and superpowers. It really says something that in the DVD commentary, co-creators Gough and Millar actually declared at one point that "she is the true magic of the show." Eventually it came out that Gough and Millar actually cast Lana before they did the casting for Clark. That is all

Oh, yeah! The Lana worship and all the Lana drama definitely did the show harm and it definitely hurt Clark's character having him so hung up on her.

[Camera One]

I actually liked Lana, so it was an example of a show where the fandom who pretty much hated Lana drove me away from the message boards.  Just like with Regina and Rumple, after a few seasons, I was so bored with the yo-yo-ing of Lex and Lionel Luther.  To me, that was the biggest weakness of the show... how many times do we need to see the same story over and over?  I pretty much lost interest once Pete left the show, and after Jonathan died.  I also never liked Lois.  I'm a completist but I've never finished the show.  I've tried watching some of the later seasons, but I just couldn't, especially with stuff like the cheap fake-out with Jimmy.  

Edited September 10, 2017 by Camera One

[MadyGirl1987]

3 hours ago, Camera One said:

I actually liked Lana, so it was an example of a show where the fandom who pretty much hated Lana drove me away from the message boards.  Just like with Regina and Rumple, after a few seasons, I was so bored with the yo-yo-ing of Lex and Lionel Luther.  To me, that was the biggest weakness of the show... how many times do we need to see the same story over and over?  I pretty much lost interest once Pete left the show, and after Jonathan died.  I also never liked Lois.  I'm a completist but I've never finished the show.  I've tried watching some of the later seasons, but I just couldn't, especially with stuff like the cheap fake-out with Jimmy.  

Yikes! Sorry to hear that about the message boards! What is the point of having message boards if the discussion is limited to what the majority thinks?

It's funny you mention Lionel. I definitely see similarities between him and Rumple, both in strengths and weaknesses. Like with Rumple, I enjoyed him best when he was a scheming bastard or reluctant ally. When they try to redeem him is when it becomes hard to watch. It's when they have tried to redeem Rumple or Lionel that they have problems.

Edited September 10, 2017 by MadyGirl1987

[daxx]

6 hours ago, Camera One said:

I actually liked Lana, so it was an example of a show where the fandom who pretty much hated Lana drove me away from the message boards.  Just like with Regina and Rumple, after a few seasons, I was so bored with the yo-yo-ing of Lex and Lionel Luther.  To me, that was the biggest weakness of the show... how many times do we need to see the same story over and over?  I pretty much lost interest once Pete left the show, and after Jonathan died.  I also never liked Lois.  I'm a completist but I've never finished the show.  I've tried watching some of the later seasons, but I just couldn't, especially with stuff like the cheap fake-out with Jimmy.  

I had the exact opposite experience on Kryptonsite, the Lana and Chloe love and complete disdain for Lois chased me off that board, I went to TV.com forums for the remainder of the show.

[Camera One]

2 hours ago, daxx said:

I had the exact opposite experience on Kryptonsite, the Lana and Chloe love and complete disdain for Lois chased me off that board, I went to TV.com forums for the remainder of the show.

I was at the forums on the precursor to this site, TWOP.   It was very anti-Lana.

I don't know if I visited Krytonsite back then, but I just checked it out and it must have changed since the polls there indicate 56% of them can't stand Lana, and Clark/Lana wins "least favorite ship" by a landslide with 631 votes vs. the runnership Clark/Chloe at 189 votes.  

I did notice that Chloe was liked pretty much universally everywhere.

I'm glad you found a good forum to discuss the show.  It's sometimes really tough with shows.  Though I would have to say "Once Upon a Time" has resulted in the most fun discussions out of almost all the shows I've watched, despite, well, the actual show.

5 hours ago, MadyGirl1987 said:

It's funny you mention Lionel. I definitely see similarities between him and Rumple, both in strengths and weaknesses. Like with Rumple, I enjoyed him best when he was a scheming bastard or reluctant ally. When they try to redeem him is when it becomes hard to watch. It's when they have tried to redeem Rumple or Lionel that they have problems.

Yes, I didn't realize how similar the writing was for Rumple and Lionel until "Smallville" was brought up.  I suppose redeeming someone once is ok, but once it goes back and forth more than once, it just loses all credibility.  For many seasons, there was also the situation where Lex and Lionel couldn't die or leave the show, so they just continually stuck around, and you wonder why the characters even bothered talking to them after their previous betrayals.  The trust issues between Lex/Lionel also reminds me a bit of Regina/Cora.  

Edited September 11, 2017 by Camera One

[Noneofyourbusiness]

On 9/8/2017 at 8:52 PM, Camera One said:

I can only imagine that A&E believed Regina couldn't bring herself to blaming Cora for it because she loved her mother too much.  But I don't think that meshes with her subsequent interactions with Cora, including sending Hook to kill her.  No one has said the obvious.  Did Snow ever point out to Regina that it was her mother who killed Daniel? 

Jane Espenson on Twitter said, "It shows Regina's pathology that she can't blame the one who is so like herself; has to blame the other."

[jhlipton]

On 9/10/2017 at 8:49 AM, daxx said:

 Once isn't unique in the exec prods having a favorite.

  Hide contents

hen she came back for three episodes in Season 8 with faux-Navy SEAL training and superpowers. It really says something that in the DVD commentary, co-creators Gough and Millar actually declared at one point that "she is the true magic of the show." Eventually it came out that Gough and Millar actually cast Lana before they did the casting for Clark. That is all

 

Heroes had the same problem -- Skylar should have been gone after Season1, but the PTB liked him too much and kept bringing his sorry ass back.  The next seasons just got worse and worse.

[Camera One]

"Heroes" for sure had quite a few of the same problems as "Once".  One major one was Sylar (keeping a villain around just because the Writers loved him).  Another was making people related to each other to the point of absurdity (again, Sylar, Claire).  A third was trying to repeat the same scenario over and over again ad nauseum.  After an entire first season, the "heroes" FINALLY got to converge and work together in the finale.  Yet the Writers insisted on resetting and separated everyone out AGAIN at the beginning of Season 2.  And then again and again every time they started a new arc.  The "normalcy" of the characters from Season 1 were completely lost as these characters became personality-less superpower machines.  They even destroyed a few of the original characters in the reboot (which also had the exact same pattern with "replacement" characters who were pale copies of their original characters).  Though my liking for "Heroes" in Season 1 was nowhere close to my liking for "Once", I did suffer through the entire rest of the series.

[Shanna Marie]

We've done a lot of comparisons to Joss Whedon shows, and after the recent revelations/accusations from his ex-wife about how fake his "feminism" turned out to be, this bit from the discussion of "A Song in Your Heart" jumped out at me because it's similar to what I've always felt about Whedon's "strong female characters."

On 6/10/2017 at 7:42 PM, KingOfHearts said:

A song in Emma's heart was pretty much a retcon. She never did any singing, other than in the Wish Realm and in this episode's flashbacks. It doesn't really make sense or add to anything. It's funny how the writers keep trying to add things to make Emma more special or heroic without actually making her make new choices. Not only is she the Savior destined to break the curse, but she's also magical (S2), born of a pure fetus (4B), and part of a long line of Saviors (6A), and now we've discovered she's had a song planted in her heart in order to end a minor scuffle with the Black Fairy. The writers throw these things at her instead of making her important by her own merit.

This is pretty much how I see the way Whedon writes his "strong female characters." Yeah, they can kick ass and do great things, but it's generally because of something that's been done to them (usually by men) to make them special, not because of anything they did, choices they made, preparation they did, etc. Buffy had Slayer powers that turned out to have been imposed upon the First Slayer by the tribal elders. Cordelia on Angel had godlike visions imposed on her, and Fred was turned into a powerful goddess (at least, her body became a vessel for one) after a ritual done by a man. River on Firefly was the product of scientific experimentation that gave her extra abilities. I think Zoe on Firefly was about the only one who was strong because she made herself strong and learned skills.

There's a similar pattern on this show. Cora and Regina got their powers from Rumple teaching them (and that magical book). Emma was the Savior because of fate, but also was special because she's born of true love, had her darkness removed, and was implanted with magical song. There are no female mentors teaching other women to be powerful. It's only in secondary guest characters where we get "self-made" strong women who trained and learned for themselves.

The other Whedon trait with female characters is a tendency to infantilize the smart women. The clever, brainy, or technical female characters are treated like cutesy little girls -- Willow with her baby voice and childish clothing and vocabulary, Kaylee with her teddy bear coveralls and "little sister" status on the crew, Fred with her scattered flakiness (poor Amy Acker got typecast for a while, like her Nova on Once, so her role in Person of Interest was such a welcome relief). They sort of do that on this show with Belle, and her weirdly little girl wardrobe (when it's not matronly), worn with stiletto heels that she walks in like she's a child putting on her mother's heels.

[Camera One]

"Once" also takes down their "strong" female characters when they actually do something monumental.  Emma is willing to take things on alone, but apparently, that's a major character flaw because her WALLS are too high.  Snow ingeniously defeats the megavillain Cora, but apparently, that's hugely immoral and something to be ashamed of.  Belle stands up to Rumple and then backs down and/or turns a blind eye.  The other thing is, at least with Joss Whedon's female characters, they actually experience success.  Buffy really would be a tough hero to face.  I don't remember the last thing our "heroes" on "Once" (females, or males) did which actually worked the way they wanted it to work and actually made a lasting difference.  How can we see Emma as strong when she re-animates her family and friends in "Song In Your Heart" but gets Cursed anyway two hours later?

Edited September 13, 2017 by Camera One

[jhlipton]

1 hour ago, Shanna Marie said:

There are no female mentors teaching other women to be powerful.

They learned their lesson from Cinderella's first fairy godmother.  (Am I still mad about a white male murdering a black woman without any repercussions at all?  "Magic has consequences", my ass.  You're  damn right I am.)

[Camera One]

If A&E wrote "The Wizard of Oz":

"Dorothy threw the water on the witch.  "I'm meeltting," she cried. The Winkies looked at Dorothy in horror: "You are NO DIFFERENT than the Wicked Witch!"

If A&E wrote "Lord of the Rings":

"Frodo threw The Ring into Mount Doom.  The Ring floated on the magma but it did not melt!  Sauron spoke: "You think it is that easy to destroy The One Ring That Rules Them All?  Thank you for delivering it straight into my hands!  Muaahahahahahahahahahaha.  Nothing you did in the last 9 months mattered!"

If A&E wrote "The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe".

"Jadis watched as Aslan, Lucy and Susan rode in joy around the stone table.  Why couldn't she find love and friendship?  Why did people not give her a chance?  Why was her childhood so sad?  Why didn't her mother love her?  Why didn't anyone like her iced desserts?  Her heart broke as she thought of being separated from Edmund, the boy who changed her life.  She cared for him so much, even though she was using him to pull her sleigh."

If A&E wrote "Harry Potter":

Hermione: "Voldemort and The Death Eaters have surrounded Hogwarts.  What shall we do, Harry?" 
Harry: "Let's have our graduation ceremony right now!  Tomorrow is uncertain.  Who knows what it will bring?"
Ginny: "But one thing is for sure, love.  With you, I have everything."
Harry: "A happily ever after... is the way these stories go... Used to think that's what I wanted.  But now I finally know."
Ron: "There's no storm we can't outrun."
Neville: "We will always find the sun."
Hermione: "Leave the past and all its scars."
Everyone: "A happy beginning now is ourrrrrrrrs!"

Edited September 13, 2017 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

^ It brings the ludicrous nature of OUAT in sharp relief, doesn't it?