OUAT vs. Other Fairy Tales: Compare & Contrast

[jhlipton]

And the Death-Eaters are just misunderstood!

[MadyGirl1987]

9 hours ago, Camera One said:

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!"

 

1 hour ago, jhlipton said:

And the Death-Eaters are just misunderstood!

Oh, God! I shudder to think what A&E would do to the Harry Potter series. They would so give Harry "walls" because of his tragic past and horrible upbringing. Horrible people like the Dursleys, Umbridge and Voldemort would be portrayed as sympathetic or victims. Petunia Dursley would be a tragic figure who was tormented by her sister with magic, neglected by her parents since she wasn't magical like Lily, and then had to raise that sister's son. Voldemort would be tormented by the muggles in the orphanage he was raised in and then an outcast at Hogwarts so of course he would want to hurt others. Harry's parents, Dumbledore and the other members of the Order of the Phoenix would be a group of horrible people working to stop him getting his rightful revenge on the world that treated him horribly.

*Shudders*

Thank God J.K. Rowling keeps a tight leash on what people do with her work so A&E will never get a chance to trash the HP series.

[Shanna Marie]

13 hours ago, Camera One said:

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.

On the other hand, he also did with Buffy that weird arm's reach kind of morality, where it's bad for the hero to do it, but okay for someone else to do it on their behalf -- when Giles killed Ben so that Glory would die and made it so Buffy wouldn't have to. I suppose in that case it was because Buffy was a teenager and he thought it would be too much for her, but given her body count at that time, it struck me as odd, and that's similar to the Once thing of "a hero can't do this horrible thing, even if it's necessary to stop the villain, so someone else will have to do it."

1 hour ago, MadyGirl1987 said:

Voldemort would be tormented by the muggles in the orphanage he was raised in and then an outcast at Hogwarts so of course he would want to hurt others. Harry's parents, Dumbledore and the other members of the Order of the Phoenix would be a group of horrible people working to stop him getting his rightful revenge on the world that treated him horribly.

Sadly, there's a significant (or at least vocal) faction of the fandom that sees things this way. But pity the fool who tweets something along those lines and tags JKR. What I liked was that she gave Harry and Voldemort almost identical backgrounds so that you couldn't really pull the "poor, sad Voldemort, he had no choice but to be evil" thing since Harry went through the same thing and wasn't evil. It was all about the choices they made in response to their circumstances. Where Once's morality gets skewed is that they gave Regina a happier background than her victims, and yet she's given a pass for being evil while they're raked over the coals for every little thing.

On an entirely different note, aside from the last panel, this comic is basically Regina and Rumple in "The Evil Queen."

[MadyGirl1987]

3 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

What I liked was that she gave Harry and Voldemort almost identical backgrounds so that you couldn't really pull the "poor, sad Voldemort, he had no choice but to be evil" thing since Harry went through the same thing and wasn't evil. It was all about the choices they made in response to their circumstances.

I liked it that as well. I love how she stresses it's choices that make you what you are. Yeah, circumstances can impact and shape you, but it is how you respond to them and let them shape you that show who you are.

[jhlipton]

10 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

On the other hand, he also did with Buffy that weird arm's reach kind of morality, where it's bad for the hero to do it, but okay for someone else to do it on their behalf -- when Giles killed Ben so that Glory would die and made it so Buffy wouldn't have to.

Ben was human, a "container" for Glory.  Remember that faith was castigated for killing the mayor's minion, who was far from innocent.  I don't think Buffy had killed any humans at that point. Also, she had taken a romantic interest in Ben before discovering what he was.  Between those two, it was reasonable for Giles to kill Ben so Buffy wouldn't have to.  Far different from murdering a fairy solely to benefit your son.

[KAOS Agent]

On Buffy, killing vampires/demons was completely acceptable because they were soulless and irredeemable. They had no conscience and were all straight up evil. It's why Buffy  sat in the cemetery and slayed vampires the second they rose. With humans, even evil humans like the mayor's minion or Ethan Rayne, the idea was that the Slayer was not responsible for judging them and sentencing them to death/other punishment. The Slayer's role was to stop evil and protect the world from vampires. Even with Spike, she couldn't kill him because he was "harmless" once chipped and killing him would be wrong. The Ben issue was a little different. Giles killed Ben to save Buffy from having to do it, but Ben was sort of a gray area since he was a vessel for Glory and had no control over her, so he wasn't entirely human and was basically half evil hell god. His human half also chose to side with Glory and didn't even try to fight her possession.

Once does not have any kind of coherent morality. If Emma kills, even in self-defense/defense of others, she's the ultimate evil and will be unable to come back from it, so she must allow herself to be killed rather than fight back. Regina and Rumpel can kill seemingly at will and it's no problem. Even in S6, Regina kills Edmond Dantes in a situation almost exactly like Emma found herself in with Gideon, but there were no consequences to Regina killing whereas Emma had to sacrifice herself because reasons. It's not even a heroes/villains thing since Regina was a "hero" at the time. It's simply the writers deciding that X character can get away with anything and Y character must be castigated for any minor infraction.

[andromeda331]

3 hours ago, KAOS Agent said:

Once does not have any kind of coherent morality. If Emma kills, even in self-defense/defense of others, she's the ultimate evil and will be unable to come back from it, so she must allow herself to be killed rather than fight back. Regina and Rumpel can kill seemingly at will and it's no problem. Even in S6, Regina kills Edmond Dantes in a situation almost exactly like Emma found herself in with Gideon, but there were no consequences to Regina killing whereas Emma had to sacrifice herself because reasons. It's not even a heroes/villains thing since Regina was a "hero" at the time. It's simply the writers deciding that X character can get away with anything and Y character must be castigated for any minor infraction.

That's exactly it. That's exactly how they set things up. They don't want or care about any kind of morality, or world building or even making their stories make any sense.  They have zero interest in any of that.  

[Rumsy4]

Even David gets away with killing people. It's only Emma and Snow who can't kill anyone, even in self-defense or to protect others.

[Camera One]

Hook also killed Jekyll/Hyde and we didn't get an episode or two of him twisted up over it.  The David one in Season 6 is even more ridiculous because this was Shepherd David, you know, formerly Meek Victim Who Needed Anna To Teach Him How To Fight.  If they really wanted to keep it consistent, they could have given David a Batman-like determination not to kill.  He really is just an afterthought to the Writers.

So basically, when a villain does it, it's "bold and audacious".  When a male "hero" does it, it's never mentioned again.  When a female "hero" does it, she's shamed and she has lost her moral integrity.  What a feminist show, eh?  The only exception I can think of is Gideon, but in some ways, he's considered a child and children shouldn't kill either.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Camera One

[CCTC]

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

What a feminist show, eh? 

In the season 6 finale Emma was basically a shivering shell who passively accepted death (and she is unable to rescue herself from the curse), Regina and Zelina's magical efforts were worthless, they basically limited Snow to a scene to be mirror image a scene with her in Charming in season 1 as their closure and good bye, Belle literally was taken out from helping save her son by getting injured because she was running in heels,  and male Rumple was the one who ended up saving the day basically for making a decision not for the greater good, but for his own self-interests.

[Shanna Marie]

I heard this song at a concert today, and it really hits all the fairy tale themes in this show:

 

Meanwhile, something occurred to me: It's rather difficult to do an ongoing series involving fairy tales and still be unironic about the idea of happy endings. You can deconstruct the concept, like they did in Into the Woods, where the second act explored what happened after the happily ever after and pointed out the weaknesses in those happy endings -- marrying a stranger doesn't necessarily go well, someone who lived her whole life locked in a tower is going to have issues, maybe it was the pursuit of the woman rather than the woman that was so appealing. But a happy ending doesn't fit with an ongoing series, where you have to keep the drama going.

There's a reason the story is "Beauty and the Beast's love for each other breaks the curse, returning him to his human form, and they got married and lived happily ever after" and not "Beauty and the Beast's love doesn't actually break the curse because he doesn't want to lose the power the curse gives him, but she marries him anyway, and then he schemes behind her back and does evil things, she dumps him, but then she takes him back when he either looks sad or makes one good choice, until he screws up again after a month or so." Or "the prince saves Snow White from the effects of the poison apple, the Evil Queen is punished for her crimes, the prince and Snow White get married and live happily ever after" rather than "the prince and Snow get married, but the queen curses them, so they're separated from their child and each other for 28 years, that curse breaks, the evil queen keeps trying to kill them, but then they become friends with her."

Fairy tales are about tying things up and resolving matters, and that's antithetical to an ongoing series unless that series is questioning the idea of a happy ending. But this series uses the term "happy ending" far too often for them to seriously be questioning it.

[Camera One]

That is a major problem with stories that try to explore "what happens next" after a well-known tale.  Normally, I'm very disinterested in the offspring of iconic characters.  I don't want to think of Snow White's children.  I remember actually having that trepidation when I was anticipating the pilot.  So "Once Upon a Time" did surprise me by making me actually care about Snow White's child. 

Meanwhile, the "keeping the drama going" problem is a major one for many shows, once they resolve the major obstacles and character flaws presented in a pilot.  That's why shows often get tired by the third season, or even by the second.  Many shows end up feeling contrived as they try to create new problems or have characters regress or face yet another demon from the past or change their mind about a relationship for the umpteenth time.  

With "Once", there was actually very little attempt to continue telling the stories of most of the "happily ever afters".  The show had little interest in Cinders after her original episode, or Aurora/Philip after 2A, or Ariel or Eric after their one-off, etc.  The main characters who A&E were forced to write for (Snowing, Emma, Belle, etc.) thus got the more and more convoluted developments and/or more and more egregious retcons, solely to give their characters some conflict and drama to deal with (while ignoring all the organic feelings or reactions they should have been having). 

Edited September 25, 2017 by Camera One

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

That is a major problem with stories that try to explore "what happens next" after a well-known tale.  

That's why I thought the show would have been better if they had used the "fish out of water" approach more effectively.  It would create more opportunity for drama organically as they dealt with different worlds.  They shouldn't have crammed so many tales into the population of EF.  They should have used Camelot and Neverland better.  They should have gone to Oz.  They should have not blended the cursed / non cursed personalities so much that neither EF or Storybrooke/real world was foreign.

But A&E just didn't want to go any deeper than the surface.

[Shanna Marie]

13 hours ago, Camera One said:

That is a major problem with stories that try to explore "what happens next" after a well-known tale.  Normally, I'm very disinterested in the offspring of iconic characters.  I don't want to think of Snow White's children.

I don't really have that problem. I'm okay with exploring what happens next if it's really explored. Like I mentioned, Into the Woods, which applies a more realistic lens to those fairy tale situations -- are the princes really in love with these women they barely know, or is it the lure of the challenge, the woman who's just out of reach? Would a girl who's essentially been a slave be comfortable in a palace? Did the giant have anyone who would avenge him? Those are questions I have when I read fairy tales, especially all those stories in which the nobody boy falls in love with a picture of a princess, so he's willing to risk his life on the impossible task to win her. Would he really be happy with her when he didn't know her at all, and what would she think about her father promising her in marriage to some nobody? (And there are actually a few tales with an Act 2 in which the princess and her mother scheme to get rid of this guy so she doesn't have to marry him.)

I think I would have been okay with Snow White having ongoing struggles. I like that she had to fight a war to win back her kingdom and that she continued to struggle against the Evil Queen. But you can't go on talking about happy endings unironically when you're telling that story, especially when it's the Evil Queen whining about not getting her happy ending and acting as though Snow White had it easy. And it really saps the life from the story when Snow White just apparently hands over her kingdom to the Evil Queen, in spite of fighting the war and in spite of all she went through.

The problem with their assault on the Beauty and the Beast tale is that it's not even the what happens after happily ever after. They artificially stretched out the story, with the Beast constantly almost, but not quite, reforming, then going back to being a beast and threatening Belle, then sort of reforming, then reverting. It's like if Belle decided she was in love with him right after "Be Our Guest" and married him after she got the library, while he was still a beast, and he didn't actually change after the sacrifice for love because they thought he was more interesting as a beast and wanted to keep their options open. They never can break the curse on him because the story's over when they do (at least, the way they're telling it. I can think of all kinds of stories they could tell with Rumple no longer having powers and having to start over again as a normal person.).

[MadyGirl1987]

5 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

The problem with their assault on the Beauty and the Beast tale is that it's not even the what happens after happily ever after. They artificially stretched out the story, with the Beast constantly almost, but not quite, reforming, then going back to being a beast and threatening Belle, then sort of reforming, then reverting. It's like if Belle decided she was in love with him right after "Be Our Guest" and married him after she got the library, while he was still a beast, and he didn't actually change after the sacrifice for love because they thought he was more interesting as a beast and wanted to keep their options open. They never can break the curse on him because the story's over when they do (at least, the way they're telling it. I can think of all kinds of stories they could tell with Rumple no longer having powers and having to start over again as a normal person.).

Totally agree, although I feel the problems with their story comes from more then just the need to stretch it out. Apart from the Woegina, the massacre of the Beauty and the Beast story is the worst sin the show has committed IMO. I always get mad when people say the Disney version of Beauty and the Beast is Stockholm syndrome(She didn’t start to like him until he wasn’t being a complete jerk and started acting nice, people! That’s not Stockholm syndrome!) but I would say Belle in OUAT has it for sure. She definitely projects what she wants to see into Rumple and definitely is a big apologist for his behavior. I remember there was a time in season 6, forget the exact episode or what exactly went down, but he basically imprisons her to “keep her safe.” Their relationship goes into abuse territory, and having Belle take him back time and time again is infuriating.

Edited September 25, 2017 by MadyGirl1987

[Camera One]

From Wikipedia page on "The Frog Prince"

Quote

The frog prince also has a loyal servant named Henry who had three iron bands affixed around his heart to prevent it from breaking in his sadness over his master's curse, but when the prince was reverted to his human form Henry's overwhelming happiness caused all three bands to break, freeing his heart from its bonds.

I wonder if this will come into play this season.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

I wonder if this will come into play this season.

I wouldn't count on it. That would involve actually reading the source material in more depth than having a vague sense of what a story is popularly believed to be about. But I'd pay money to see them do the Grimm version of "The Frog Prince" in which the spell is broken by the princess throwing the frog against a wall rather than with a kiss.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

On 8/30/2017 at 7:42 PM, Camera One said:

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.

This sounds just like Supernatural as well.  

[Guest]

I'll put this here since I have no idea where to speculate anymore.

The promo made me wonder if they will go the Doctor Who route with Emma and Hook.

Some magical spell generates another Hook with two hands that gets cursed and original Hook goes and lives happily ever after somewhere inaccessible with Emma.

Basically when Ten was leaving Doctor Who, they gave another, human version of him (generated from his hand in a jar), a happily ever after in a parallel world with Rose.  I presume as a contingency just in case they could ever get Tennant to guest after Ten became Eleven.

Frankly, I'd be ok with that.  That is about the only thing I'd be ok with.

[Rumsy4]

1 hour ago, ParadoxLost said:

Some magical spell generates another Hook with two hands that gets cursed and original Hook goes and lives happily ever after somewhere inaccessible with Emma.

I think it's possible, but if another Hook is generated wouldn't he still be the same person? Why would one clone be more "original" than the other? I wont find this very satisfying. If it's a alternate version from another timeline, then all his interactions with Henry, or scenes of him reminded of Emma, would become meaningless. I read a theory that the other version of Hook was actually from the future--that he was Hook after the Curse had broken, and he was rejoining Emma. It seems convoluted, but a possible way to explain how Emma and Hook are "happy" together. Still, that "spoils" that that Curse will break, and I just can't see A&E going there. We shall see...

[KingOfHearts]

TNG and BTVS did their own "cloning" antics, though in very small doses. I'd be fine with another Hook, but that doesn't really remedy the Captain Swan problem. We'd be stuck mourning over Clone Hook because he'd be separated from Emma forever. Now, if Clone Hook was a different person who never got with Emma, that would be a horse of a different color. However, we saw in the premiere episode that there's still some connection there. One Hook would be happy, the other would be forced to move on somewhere else. That would be tragic.

Edited October 8, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

TNG and BTVS did their own "cloning" antics, though in very small doses. I'd be fine with another Hook, but that doesn't really remedy the Captain Swan problem. We'd be stuck mourning over Clone Hook because he'd be separated from Emma forever. Now, if Clone Hook was a different person who never got with Emma, that would be a horse of a different color. However, we saw in the premiere episode that there's still some connection there. One Hook would be happy, the other would be forced to move on somewhere else. That would be tragic.

Oh, I totally agree that this scenario would be tragic. But frankly, I'm thinking more about getting closure from this show.  After the premiere I'm not confident I won't drift away after the next episode.  I am kind of in the mood for closure and a happy ending for Captain Swan even if its bittersweet because there is a version of Hook that also loves Emma who will never have her. It was tragic in Doctor Who as well but considering cast departures and the show going on, I was ok with it.

Just the mood I'm in at the moment.

1 hour ago, Rumsy4 said:

 I read a theory that the other version of Hook was actually from the future--that he was Hook after the Curse had broken, and he was rejoining Emma. It seems convoluted, but a possible way to explain how Emma and Hook are "happy" together. Still, that "spoils" that that Curse will break, and I just can't see A&E going there. We shall see...

That is certainly possible since the only time we saw two of Hook it was time travel.  But the thing that makes me leery of this theory is that there is no way to avoid a perpetual expectation that Emma will return for the end of the story.  And I'd rather not be strung along.

[Rumsy4]

1 hour ago, ParadoxLost said:

But the thing that makes me leery of this theory is that there is no way to avoid a perpetual expectation that Emma will return for the end of the story.  And I'd rather not be strung along.

Not necessarily. In fact, this would eliminate that need entirely. All we need is to be shown Future!Hook going through a portal to Storybrooke and reunited with Emma in the same episode. 

[Camera One]

I was watching random clips and happened upon the one in 3B when Henry's memories returned.  For a moment, I thought I was watching Season 6 of "Lost".  As much of a dud most of 3B was, I actually liked this scene.  Henry's acting seemed better and the emotion felt more genuine.  At the time, it annoyed me a little that it was all about Regina.  Snowing might as well be extras, standing there with zero exchange with Henry.  They didn't even bother doing a "memories returning" scene with Emma in the Season 6 finale, did they?  If they did, it must have been very unmemorable.

[KingOfHearts]

8 hours ago, Camera One said:

I was watching random clips and happened upon the one in 3B when Henry's memories returned.  For a moment, I thought I was watching Season 6 of "Lost".  As much of a dud most of 3B was, I actually liked this scene.  Henry's acting seemed better and the emotion felt more genuine.  At the time, it annoyed me a little that it was all about Regina.  Snowing might as well be extras, standing there with zero exchange with Henry.  They didn't even bother doing a "memories returning" scene with Emma in the Season 6 finale, did they?  If they did, it must have been very unmemorable.

They should have done that more in S1. Have one or a few characters remember. That would have been more interesting. Jefferson doesn't count.

[Camera One]

"Game of Thrones" is taking #NoSpoilers to a whole new level.

Quote

Nikolaj, from Denmark, appeared on Nordic chat show Skavlan, revealed that cast members will no longer digitally receive copies of the scripts and will instead be fed dialogue from an earpiece.

"We’re not even going to get the script," he said, via the Associated Press, before explaining the unique plans they have for keeping everything under lock and key.

I hope they will still give the actors background information about their characters' motivations, because how are they supposed to act properly with limited info?  They was the problem with stuff like Zarian in 4A.

Though I suspect that issue won't be a problem here, since it has also been reported that the cast got to meet and read through the entire season.  I guess this is the difference between cable shows that have all the seasons' scripts in the can before filming vs. write-as-you-go of network television.

Edited October 14, 2017 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

I binged all episodes of The Good Place. It's very enjoyable and light fare. The world building is already light-years ahead of ONCE.

[Writing Wrongs]

I started a re-watch of Once Upon A Time In Wonderland and was way more drawn in to the show than this new season. I know it had its problems, but it felt like Once. This season does not at all.

[Jenniferbug]

4 minutes ago, Writing Wrongs said:

I started a re-watch of Once Upon A Time In Wonderland and was way more drawn in to the show than this new season. I know it had its problems, but it felt like Once. This season does not at all.

I just finished a rewatch of Once Upon a Time in Wonderland, and I loved it even more than I remembered. 

[daxx]

2 hours ago, Writing Wrongs said:

I started a re-watch of Once Upon A Time In Wonderland and was way more drawn in to the show than this new season. I know it had its problems, but it felt like Once. This season does not at all.

Where are you seeing it? I haven't seen it on Netflix.

[KingOfHearts]

2 hours ago, Jenniferbug said:

I just finished a rewatch of Once Upon a Time in Wonderland, and I loved it even more than I remembered. 

OUATIW is fantastic. It's entertaining from beginning to end. I finished a rewatch out of it a month or two ago, and still loved it. The characters are just so darn likable!

[Camera One]

They didn't try to replicate their formula to a tee and actually tried something new.  

The first episode didn't impress me since I thought the two villains were really poorly acted.  But I liked Alice, Cyrus and Will, and the adventure angle, so I was still drawn in.  By the end of the series, I did appreciate everyone in the cast, except maybe Jafar.  So overall, it was an excellent series, well planned, well plotted/paced, and well executed. 

[Writing Wrongs]

5 hours ago, daxx said:

Where are you seeing it? I haven't seen it on Netflix

I bought it a while ago from Amazon Video. 

[Jenniferbug]

12 hours ago, daxx said:

Where are you seeing it? I haven't seen it on Netflix.

I downloaded the ABC app on my Roku and streamed it for free there. It might be on their website.

[daxx]

28 minutes ago, Jenniferbug said:

I downloaded the ABC app on my Roku and streamed it for free there. It might be on their website.

Thanks, I have a Roku, just didn't know it was there.

[tennisgurl]

OUAT in Wonderland was such a good show, I loved it so much. It had some flaws, but it was overall a fun, exciting show with magic, fun, romance, some interesting world building, a solid redemption story, likable heroes, scary villains, and a really solid story that built up to a stratifying payoff in the end. I am honestly pretty salty that they're doing Alice again this season, even if its a different version of her from another story (or something), because we already had an Alice! She was awesome!

I really do wish that the ratings had been better, and they could have kept doing a new story every season as a spin off show. It could be like a fairy tale version of American Horror Story, where each season has a full, complete story, but with continuity nods and maybe even a few cross overs with the Mothership and the rest of the world. It would have been a great way to expand the world (which has SO MUCH potential) and tell new stories in new genres, without having to add a million pointless characters and subplots to the main show. Which, you know, they did. 

[jhlipton]

18 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

It had some flaws

The one I will never forgive is how they treated Lizard.

[Writing Wrongs]

I just wish they had put it out on blu-ray. A lot of other one season shows that got canceled have gotten them (Emerald City).

[KingOfHearts]

1 hour ago, Writing Wrongs said:

I just wish they had put it out on blu-ray. A lot of other one season shows that got canceled have gotten them (Emerald City).

*spits out drink*
Emerald City gets one, but OUATIW doesn't? What world are we living in?

I still hate Emerald City.

Edited October 22, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

I just watched "Up".  I had heard so many things about it.  It was good, though not as amazing as what I've heard.  I find a lot of the Pixar movies solid, but I don't think I've connected to any of them as much as the traditional animated films.

[Rumsy4]

I have the same feeling about UP. It peaked in the first 15 minutes. The rest of the movie was pretty good, but not exceptional. 

[VoicePlaya]

That's how I feel about "Up". Good, but not wonderful. 

[KingOfHearts]

12 hours ago, Rumsy4 said:

I have the same feeling about UP. It peaked in the first 15 minutes. The rest of the movie was pretty good, but not exceptional. 

The married life montage is one of my favorite sequences in cinema, but the rest of the film is just "meh" for me. The imagery is interesting, though.

I recently finished my first ever Lost rewatch with someone who hadn't seen it before. How does it hold up the second time around? Well, again, the final season and the ending left a bittersweet taste in my mouth. The flash sideways didn't bother me as much. In fact, they were easily the best part of S6. Everything on the island was boring, with the characters swapping alliances for reasons. "Yes I am with Locke, and I know he's not Locke, and I don't trust him, and I have no idea what I'm doing with my life any more". Unless you're basking in the awe of the mythology reveals, it's really not that engaging. There's a shift in the show's themes. S2-S5 had Dharma, the Others, the feud with Widmore, and the plane crashes. Most of that becomes irrelevant in S6, and the narrative transforms into a unapologetic fantasy experience, which can be very jarring. I'm not saying the island lore doesn't work at all, but you have to be really sold on it to feel satisfied with a good chunk of the series' conclusion. 

My gripe this time around was about the ships. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that Sayid's romantic partner in the afterlife was Shannon. They only spent a few weeks with each other. Sayid had married Nadia and spent his life trying to get back to her. He carried a photo of her around to keep himself motivated. Her death is what made him spiral down the path of darkness. I'm still bitter about how Sawyer/Kate/Jack/Juliet turned out. I've always hated Suliet (just my personal feelings), and Jate never did anything for me. I thought Kate/Sawyer was what the writers were going with, and as much as I despise Kate, I really shipped it.

I am, however, glad I got to see it a second time. I noticed some things I didn't before, like little easter eggs or connections within the story.

Edited October 26, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

6 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

I recently finished my first ever Lost rewatch with someone who hadn't seen it before. How does it hold up the second time around? Well, again, the final season and the ending left a bittersweet taste in my mouth. The flash sideways didn't bother me as much. In fact, they were easily the best part of S6. Everything on the island was boring, with the characters swapping alliances for reasons. "Yes I am with Locke, and I know he's not Locke, and I don't trust him, and I have no idea what I'm doing with my life any more". Unless you're basking in the awe of the mythology reveals, it's really not that engaging.

I really hated the present-day in S6.  None of the characters felt like their old selves anymore and the mythology reveals like The Temple were disappointing.  It was basically people walking around the island from one place to another, except with no well-written conversations.  Even in 5A with the time jumps, the adventure was fun to watch.  But S6 had none of that energy.  I liked the flashbacks where we saw a major difference.  The retreads were boring.

Quote

My gripe this time around was about the ships. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that Sayid's romantic partner in the afterlife was Shannon. They only spent a few weeks with each other. Sayid had married Nadia and spent his life trying to get back to her. He carried a photo of her around to keep himself motivated. Her death is what made him spiral down the path of darkness. I'm still bitter about how Sawyer/Kate/Jack/Juliet turned out. I've always hated Suliet (just my personal feelings), and Jate never did anything for me. I thought Kate/Sawyer was what the writers were going with, and as much as I despise Kate, I really shipped it.

The Sayid/Shannon thing bugged me so much when I first watched it.  Luckily, Suliet really grew on me, and I liked Jate, so I was fine with that.  Ultimately, Kate and Sawyer were the ones who lived, so maybe they did have a go when they returned.  I suspect the Writers wanted to keep it open to placate all ships.

[Rumsy4]

The Sayid/Shannon thing was really a horrible decision for the afterlife. But it is sort of consistent with the first season where Sayid decided to move on in the Island rather than cling to the past. However, after being married to Nadia once he escaped, the choice to go with Shannon makes no sense. Maybe he could never get over his guilt? I donno. I think that one example of writers sticking to their original plan instead of going where the character evolution leads them (a HIMYM-style mess).

On 10/25/2017 at 9:08 PM, Camera One said:

Ultimately, Kate and Sawyer were the ones who lived, so maybe they did have a go when they returned. 

That's how I look at it. I could never get behind either Skate or Jate. Juliet grew on me, and I really liked Suliet. 

[Shanna Marie]

I caught part of the third Shrek movie while I was in a hotel last week, and I had to look up the release date (it was a year before Once launched) because there were so many elements that seemed strikingly familiar. The villain was Rumpelstiltskin, and they called him Rumple. There was an alternate reality created by a wish. In that alternate reality, the suave, dashing character was fat, and there were a lot of jokes about him being fat and useless. The True Love's Kiss for breaking the spell didn't work when one of the people involved didn't remember the other and wasn't in love, and it took an act of sacrifice to create that love so the kiss would work (really, that season one episode seemed frighteningly close to this). I'm sure there were more. This was just what I noticed during the last half hour or so while using the TV as background noise for getting ready for bed and doing some knitting.

[Rumsy4]

Interesting. There was also the movie Enchanted that came out in 2007. I felt that OUAT borrowed a lot of elements from that as well.

[Camera One]

I know Shrek was popular but I never liked it.  I remember being so excited for the fairy tale mashups and there were a few clever things but overall I didn't enjoy it and I didn't find it funny.  So I never bothered with the sequels.

I think the Lost headwriters said this was the afterlife they created together with ppl from the island and thus no Nadia. Still, it left a bad taste in my mouth.  I never felt any chemistry between Sayid and Shannon . Apparently the romance was the actor's idea if I remember right.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

1 minute ago, Camera One said:

I know Shrek was popular but I never liked it.  I remember being so excited for the fairy tale mashups and there were a few clever things but overall I didn't enjoy it and I didn't find it funny.  So I never bothered with the sequels.

I thought the first two were fun, but not quite as clever as the makers seemed to think they were. The third one was rather awful -- kind of depressing, really. I didn't see it at the theater, just on HBO. I ended up with it on in a hotel room because it was the best background noise option I found, and I'd only seen it once, so it was moderately fresh. But it is pretty awful. It only became amusing once I started spotting all the Once parallels.

[KingOfHearts]

I don't care for the Shrek movies either, with the exception of Shrek 2.  That movie is probably my favorite animated comedy. It really leverages the fairy tale mashups and the potential of its world. I wish OUAT borrowed more from it than any of the others in the series.

Quote

 

I think the Lost headwriters said this was the afterlife they created together with ppl from the island and thus no Nadia. Still, it left a bad taste in my mouth.  I never felt any chemistry between Sayid and Shannon . Apparently the romance was the actor's idea if I remember right.

Nadia was in it, though. She was married to Sayid's brother for some reason.

Edited October 27, 2017 by KingOfHearts