OUAT vs. Other Fairy Tales: Compare & Contrast

[Rumsy4]

15 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

Usually shows deal with this problem with timeskips or "slice of life" moments to prove they do live normally between the chaos.

I think the best comparisons are to Fringe and Eureka. They were both Sci-Fi Shows that started out as episodic, but later developed larger arcs. Eureka in particular had a lot of characters, and they were usually dealing with some crisis or another. While Fringe had a much smaller core cast, it was also a show where the charatcers were always putting out fires and dealing with batshit crazy characters and insane McGuffins. But these Shows had heart. The writers took time to develop the charatcers and give them downtimes. They made sure to develop interpersonal relationships, and even when the situations the characters were in were outlandish, their conversations seemed natural. They spoke and reacted like normal people, something which OUAT characters have gradually lost over the last few seasons.

There was never any victim-blaming in Fringe, even if they could have easily gone there with Olivia or Peter. And the Show never justified Walter for his actions. The father/son relationship between Walter and Peter is one of my favorite relationships on television. It was messy and complicated, but beautiful. The central character there was the same type of "strong female character with Walls" like Emma or Kate, but she didn't keep backsliding like the other two. They even had an arc where two of the main characters are frozen in amber (heheh) and by the time they are revived, it's the future, and their grown daughter rescues them (Georgina Haig). It's painful and heartbreaking, and their issues are not swept under the rug. I'd rather forget Season 4 of Fringe existed, however, but they sort of managed to recover from that disaster in the fifth and final season. 

Edited December 2, 2017 by Rumsy4

[oncebluethrone]

On 11/30/2017 at 10:45 PM, ParadoxLost said:

I was actually fine with it.  Its not like both couples haven't had the big aborted ceremony already.  It made more sense to do a little intimate thing.  I actually got a little choked up at Diggle marrying them both. But then I've always liked how Oliver and Barry and Felicity get along.  And it was kind of a nice intimate nod that these are the core of the franchise at the end of a big melee. The originals of Arrow and the first hero they spun off.  But then again, while I like the crossovers I really not a huge fan of every show having to have their own team with nearly all of them having powers.

And I'm going to say it...  The WestAllen and Olicity wedding ceremony was better than the CaptainSwan wedding ceremony.  The CaptainSwan ceremony had a back drop of bad CGI and clunky writing that didn't sound like people talk and was bordering on recapping plot in the guise of this is why I love you vows.  The Arrowverse wedding seemed like real people in a real setting with real history were getting married.

 

On 11/30/2017 at 10:51 PM, Camera One said:

As much as the wedding song was fun to watch, I don't think I've ever seen a wedding on a show which was so ludicrous in terms of its context.  A bunch of people singing and dancing about a happy beginning when they knew for a fact that 5 minutes later, yet another Curse would be enacted and they could all die.  It made the characters seem like a bunch of idiots!  

I disagree with both these sentiments. I thought the setting for the CS wedding was beautiful and that the CGI was really good. I personally thought the vows were perfect for the characters. If this episode wasn't a musical episode, then the singing and dancing might have been a bit weird, but it was a musical episode. They characters were simply celebrating their current happiness and their belief that they will get through the upcoming danger just as they always have. It's not dumb or idiotic in any way. The characters have always had some threat hanging over them. They were choosing to live in the moment and not let the bad things get in the way of their happiness. I personally think that is a good thing because it tied directly into the main message of the show: hope and the belief that things will get better.  I think that both weddings tied well into the individual shows, but I personally think the Captain Swan one was better because it wasn't an impromptu affair immediately after a funeral next to a pile of vomit. 

[tennisgurl]

You know what I really liked about the Arrowverse crossover, and something that Once could REALLY learn from? In between all of the action and danger and shit going down, the characters still found the time to TALK to each other and reaction to things like normal people! In fact, most of the first episode was just the characters hanging out and chatting and drinking and getting ready for the wedding they were all there for, without all being exposition or angst, and it all seemed really natural. It wasn't about being superheroes, or the chosen one or anything, it was just people hanging out, and it was great! Even throughout the crossover, even as shit was actively going down, they still slowed down to allow characters to just talk to each other (even without it being plot related!) or discuss their issues in ways that seemed real and right for the characters and their relationships and pasts, and when things happened, they were allowed to actually react before moving onto the next thing! Like, 

Spoiler

when Martin died

the characters were allowed to take time to be heartbroken, and to actually process this event, in ways that made sense for their characters, before moving on to the next thing. Too many times in Once, someone dies or is lost or has to kill someone, and everyone is sad for like five seconds, and then forgets about it to run to the next plot point. Yeah the characters had to move onto the next fight, but afterwards, the character beats continued, and, again, everyone was allowed to react to everything that happened, instead of setting up for the next plot line. There was tons of plot in the whole story, but also some real character growth and fun moments, and thats what makes us care about characters when they do get into crazy adventures. We care about the plots because we care about the characters, and when the plot is more important than the characters, I just dont care as much.  Thats why I was invested in this crossover, and why I've struggled to connect with Once in the last few seasons. With the exception of their two favorites, they just dont seem to care about the characters anymore. 

Edited December 2, 2017 by tennisgurl

[Camera One]

6 hours ago, Rumsy4 said:

But these Shows had heart. The writers took time to develop the charatcers and give them downtimes. They made sure to develop interpersonal relationships, and even when the situations the characters were in were outlandish, their conversations seemed natural. They spoke and reacted like normal people, something which OUAT characters have gradually lost over the last few seasons.

 

9 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

they still slowed down to allow characters to just talk to each other (even without it being plot related!) or discuss their issues in ways that seemed real and right for the characters and their relationships and pasts, and when things happened, they were allowed to actually react before moving onto the next thing!

To many times in Once, someone dies or is lost or has to kill someone, and everyone is sad for like five seconds, and then forgets about it to run to the next plot point.

We care about the plots because we care about the characters, and when the plot is more important than the characters, 

Totally agree that the basis of any good show is the focus on the characters, which gives a show its heart.  The show had that in Season 1, but the latter half of this series has been running solely on that single season, and an episode here and there, of character focus before it moved to using the characters as drivers of plot, plot, plot.  By Season 6, that well of character depth had run dry, and simply having our favorite characters onscreen didn't work since they were basically empty shells.  Very few of the characters were acting like an actual people anymore, with actual reactions, stretching all the way back to Season 2 when Henry criticized the heroes while ignoring that Regina/Cora threw Johanna out the window, to Season 3 when one of their "friends" The Blue Fairy "died" and came back to life, and no one batted an eye.  Despite A&E claiming that they loved the characters, what they loved was the plot.

[KingOfHearts]

Movies like Guardians of the Galaxy or Thor Ragnarok prove that you don't have to bog down stories with serious drama in order to solicit sympathy for the characters. The tragic backstories are there, but they don't give characters excuses for their behaviors, and they're not played up to the balcony. You can keep the tone light and comedic without removing weight from the climactic moments. We can care about characters because we've seen them happy, and we want to see them happy again. In S1 of OUAT, we saw the various FTL folk uniting with their loved ones in the past, living out the personas we all know and love. We wanted so badly for the Curse to be broken because it was sad seeing them in such sad states. You need to lose something for an extended period of time in order to feel loss. The Marvel movies have been capitalizing on this with the current wave of movies changing the landscape and causing the characters to lose what they thought were parts of themselves. (SHIELD was revealed to be corrupted by HYDRA, the Avengers split up, Iron Man's suits are gone, all the spoilery stuff that happened in Thor Ragnorak, etc.)

Consequences, I suppose, are what I'm getting at. You need a balance of happy moments and consequences to maintain a level of audience engagement. Nobody cares if there is no real loss - if there's nothing to lose or the loss is short-lived. The ending of 3x11 was not nearly as impactful as it should have been because everyone was back in Storybrooke in the next episode. Here in S7, regardless of the consequences of breaking the curse, it really doesn't matter because we don't like the characters to begin with. Everyone is either awake or acting so much like their "awoken" personalities that the only real difference is location. WHook and Alice are the only ones who have any real angst, and I guess Regina now since she has to keep Henriella apart. (But no one cares about Henriella, so that doesn't really engage us at all.)

Edited December 2, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[daxx]

Really having Storybrooke return in the very next episode and having everyone forget the forced separation except Hook took away so much weight from that mid season finale. Hook was the only one that felt the relief of being back with Emma. No one else had a chance to miss her.

[Camera One]

I have so much mindless paperwork to do this weekend so I'm putting "Buffy" Season 1 on as background noise to get me moving along.  I've never seen Season 1 fully since I started at Season 2.  I don't like the show enough to devote my 100% attention to it but I enjoyed the 2-part pilot (which I think I've seen before but I don't remember). 

One thing that struck me is how Buffy as a character was quite light-hearted at the beginning, snappy, funny, kickass, with minimal angst.  All I remember of her is the mopey, depressing character she eventually became.  That reminds of how Emma was a very positive character at the beginning.  I felt for her, but at the same time, she had a can-do attitude, while in the later seasons, all her storylines were so bleak.  I also appreciate how the team got their information from Giles and from research, instead of running to the Evil Villain and begging for information while exacting a "price".

Edited December 3, 2017 by Camera One

[Mabinogia]

The life of a savior is not an easy one. I actually kind of appreciate that both Buffy and Emma got a bit run down by constantly having to save everyone and everything from the big bad only to find out there's another big bad waiting in the wings. While each had help from family and friends, the responsibility was on their shoulders, as well as now having to try to keep all their well meaning friends and family safe. 

At least Buffy had Giles to guild her through the transition and teach her how to be the savior. Emma had...Henry! hahahaha I think Emma got the short stick on that one. hahaha

[Rushmoras]

12 hours ago, Camera One said:

I have so much mindless paperwork to do this weekend so I'm putting "Buffy" Season 1 on as background noise to get me moving along.  I've never seen Season 1 fully since I started at Season 2.  I don't like the show enough to devote my 100% attention to it but I enjoyed the 2-part pilot (which I think I've seen before but I don't remember). 

One thing that struck me is how Buffy as a character was quite light-hearted at the beginning, snappy, funny, kickass, with minimal angst.  All I remember of her is the mopey, depressing character she eventually became.  That reminds of how Emma was a very positive character at the beginning.  I felt for her, but at the same time, she had a can-do attitude, while in the later seasons, all her storylines were so bleak.  I also appreciate how the team got their information from Giles and from research, instead of running to the Evil Villain and begging for information while exacting a "price".

Well, you try to be an upbeat person when all of your past relationships either end up in a tragedy or everyone leaves you, your destiny is actually to die and be at peace, but you can't even do that, because your friends pull you out from heaven by using magic and your are left to cope with your thoughts all alone, because the one person that you've trusted leaves, because he thinks that it builds character. And on top of that, you are entrusted a care, which you never wanted in a first place, of bunch of teenagers, who are being hunted down for what they are and who are ungrateful towards you, because apparently you are not Superman, who can save everyone around you (because those last times where no one died, you just go lucky).

[Camera One]

1 hour ago, Rushmoras said:

Well, you try to be an upbeat person when all of your past relationships either end up in a tragedy or everyone leaves you, your destiny is actually to die and be at peace, but you can't even do that, because your friends pull you out from heaven by using magic and your are left to cope with your thoughts all alone, because the one person that you've trusted leaves, because he thinks that it builds character. And on top of that, you are entrusted a care, which you never wanted in a first place, of bunch of teenagers, who are being hunted down for what they are and who are ungrateful towards you, because apparently you are not Superman, who can save everyone around you (because those last times where no one died, you just go lucky).

Yeah, they saddled her with so much for the sake of drama.  I do think they did a much better job with character development, but still, it was overkill and squeezed out the fun from the show.  They did something similar with Emma on "Once", again for drama, but also I think A&E didn't know what else to do with her and piling on Emma allowed them to keep her WALLS up.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Camera One

[tennisgurl]

I think there should be some middle ground when it comes to grinding your characters into a powder of depression. On the one hand, it is realistic that after going through tons of awful things, characters like Buffy or Emma would become more beaten down and depressed, and it can lead to some good drama. On the other hand, it can become more of a drag on the audience as well if it just becomes "everyone is sad because everything sucks always", and it becomes harder to become invested in the characters. Ideally, writers should find a balance, where they can have that delicious angst and show how it affects the characters, but not so much that the characters become shells of their former selves, and the show just becomes a never ending march of sadness where we know that everyone will just keep going to shit until the last episode. 

Honestly, I kind of prefer that Buffy take, that she become harder and colder, than the Once take, where Emma became broken and sad all of the time, riddled with shakes and self doubt. At least with Buffy, I could understand how she came to be this way, even if she wasn't always very likable anymore. With Emma, I felt like she got a personality reboot sometimes, and had lost all the spine she had originally. Of course, this also comes with the retcon about her whole "Savior" job, which basically totally changed her character trajectory from about season 3 on. 

I know I've made this point before, but I feel it needs repeating. Emma was NOT a Buffy style chosen one at first. She was more of a Harry Potter chosen one who was chosen to do one specific thing, unlike Buffy, who was called to a full life of service. Once Emma freed everyone from the curse, her job should have been done. Then, I think it would have worked better if she had just had magic powers and used them to fight the various threats, superhero style. Hell, thats what Harry did after his chosen one job was over! Most superheroes arent chosen ones, but just people who have powers or skills who use them to fight evil and help people. They could have easily gone this route and avoided the retcon and maybe could have saved Emma a lot of angst. Her issues could have actually been a lot more interesting, as she is pulled between wanting to live a quiet life, and wanting to use her powers to help Storeybrooke, without feeling like she HAD to keep saving people. 

[KingOfHearts]

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

Yeah, they saddled her with so much for the sake of drama.  I do think they did a much better job with character development, but still, it was overkill and squeezed out the fun from the show.  They did something similar with Emma on "Once", again for drama, but also I think A&E didn't know what else to do with her and piling on Emma allowed them to keep her WALLS up.

I liked both the characters of Emma and Buffy at first, but it started becoming all about their pain. They got so bogged down by the constant tribulation that they lost what made them so fun to watch. I blame writing, though I'm not sure how you could keep the sacrificial hero bit going otherwise.

[Camera One]

They could have made the characters more than just a sacrificial hero.  I guess one difference between the two shows is that Buffy actually had to be the hero most of the time.  While Emma was usually the hero on paper but she ends up being a bystander at the climax.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

9 minutes ago, Camera One said:

  While Emma was usually the hero on paper but she ends up being a bystander at the climax.

Exactly. This makes the mopeyness all the more unbearable in retrospect. The writers gave almost all the climactic victories to their two favs--Regina and Rumple. Or bizarrely enough, to rando guests like Anna for the Frozen arc. Emma has had small victories in the middle of arcs, but the only time she's had a climactic victory was her True Love's kiss to Henry in Season 1 and breaking the Dark Curse. It was the culmination of her growing relationship with her son through all the season. Getting herself stabbed by Gideon and Henry's TLKing her alive was just beyond passive as a final-season arc for Emma. It's the males (Gideon, Rumple, and Henry) that had the active role. For all their pretended care about writing strong female charatcers, A&E seem very much like dudebro-types.

I've never seen Buffy, so I can't comment. But Olivia in Fringe could get a little down too. In fact, some viewers preferred her alternate universe personality becasue "Altivia" was more open and "fun". She hadn't been through the same trauma as Olivia Prime, and so she had less "issues". It's a tough needle to thread, and while the writers did well with Emma very early on, Season 2 was the beginning of the end. They fell in love with Regina's character, and started giving her all the wins. It started with Regina and Emma stopping the Failsafe together, and finally Regina took over as unofficial lead, while Emma was relegated to savior shakes and WALLS. The only other character apart from Regina who has been allowed to have climactic victories has been Rumple, either by screwing everybody over, or by some random last minute change of heart. At least if they had given Regina and Rumple decent redemption arcs, I wouldn't be so pissed. But the fact that the writers had to crap on everybody else to elevate those two, says everything about the dishonest and lazy writing standards on ONCE.  They should never have made Emma a generic and poorly-defined "savior". 

[Camera One]

I've abandoned "Buffy" because it was too distracting, and I ended up watching some clips from "Sofia the First".  I've never watched it but I remembered some people were speculating that maybe Lucy or Lucy's mother would be this character.  It's certainly juvenile, but imagine if Belle on "Once" had sung this song to Rumple (and Regina), LOL.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Camera One

[Writing Wrongs]

I re-watched Kenneth Branagh's Cinderella. I love the movie, but stuff in the Cinderella story makes no sense to me. 

Everyone at the ball saw her face, so why did they have to try every woman's foot? And no one had the same shoe size?

[Camera One]

The shoe size is a problem with every version.  Jacinda pointed that out the first time we saw her.  I definitely agree they should have transformed her facial appearance or have her wear a veil at the ball, though.

I think this episode of "Sofia the First" featuring Cinderella must have been written by a writer from "Once".

[Camera One]

I'm a little surprised that Merida shot an arrow near Sofia the First to "get her attention".  I guess she's abrasive in every universe.  

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

I guess she's abrasive in every universe

You say abrasive, I say homicidal. Potato, potahto.

Edited December 3, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Rumsy4]

It's all Sydney's fault (X)!!

[jhlipton]

On 12/2/2017 at 10:35 AM, oncebluethrone said:

I personally think the Captain Swan one was better because it wasn't an impromptu affair immediately after a funeral next to a pile of vomit. 

Iris and Barry weren't at the funeral, because they really didn't know the deceased at all.  Moreover, they weren't planning on getting married that day; they just told Feliciver that they were going to a JoP at some point.  It was Felicity and Oliver, who weren't as close to the dead guy (I don't recall if they were at the funeral) who persuaded them to get married right away.

But you're right about the vomit part.  I headcannon that they moved a few feet down-park.

19 hours ago, Camera One said:

One thing that struck me is how Buffy as a character was quite light-hearted at the beginning, snappy, funny, kickass, with minimal angst.  All I remember of her is the mopey, depressing character she eventually became. 

This is why I refuse to acknowledge Season Sux and Season SuxMore.  Mopy, angsty caharacters; "Magic is Crack" (when it never had been before) plotline -- just YUCK.

6 hours ago, Rushmoras said:

your friends pull you out from heaven by using magic

Such a STUPID story-line.

[Shanna Marie]

2 hours ago, Writing Wrongs said:

And no one had the same shoe size?

That's something I think the Branagh version actually fixed -- they showed that the shoe magically changed. It wasn't about size. The shoe itself magically rejected everyone but Cinderella. They showed it shrinking on someone's foot so it wouldn't fit.

As for no one recognizing the face, that's something that's never made sense outside versions that make it a masquerade ball. Maybe they knew the shoe was magic and would help them find the missing girl.

[KingOfHearts]

2 hours ago, Rumsy4 said:

It's all Sydney's fault (X)!!

Shhh. Don't spoil S8.

[Camera One]

It makes more sense for no one to recognize Cinderella if she is a prisoner in Lady Tremaine's house and no one in town has seen her since she was a child.  Or she's so dirty and ragged when she's a servant that no one can recognize her when she's all dressed up.  In the animated movie, the Evil Stepmother and the Ugly Stepsisters could only glimpse her from a distance and people are in the way, so they don't see her face.

The question is always why the Prince jumps right to looking for the woman who can fit the shoe, instead of going around looking for the woman with the face he remembers.  I suppose the kingdom could be so big, that he can't literally go door to door.  In that case, he's using shoe size to narrow down the number of women he has to meet in person. 

In the Grimm fairytale, he just rides off with the ugly stepsisters who seem to fit the shoe, until he sees the blood, which makes no sense since he should have been able to tell it wasn't Cinderella from their face.  In the Perrault version and the animated movie, the Prince himself doesn't go personally to look at the applicants.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Camera One

[Camera One]

I happened upon an interview with Joss Whedon about his Buffy comic, and even though he originated the show, the storylines from the comic Season 8 and 9 seem so out there, it just seems like ridiculous fan fiction to me (granted, I haven't actually read the comics). 

It made me wonder if I would read a "Once" comic if A&E tried to continue the show that way.  Overall, I think I would go with no.  Without the actors bringing the characters to life, the stories won't feel real and given A&E, all we would get would be further character assassinations.

I saw for Buffy Season 9 that one of the writers was Andrew Chambliss and Jane Espenson was involved as well.  A few Once type elements jumped out from the plot summary (beware spoilers), such as "the series focuses on Buffy living in San Francisco in a world without magic", "Buffy discovers that Dawn is dying as a result of the end of magic", and "Willow enters a magical dimension resembling Wonderland".

Edited December 7, 2017 by Camera One

[Camera One]

Does anyone know if "Tangled: The Series" will bring the awesome storyline from "One Little Tear" into Season 2?   So we will slowly see how Rapunzel became Lady Tremaine in cartoon form.  Let's write some letters to Disney asking for this!

[Noneofyourbusiness]

On 12/7/2017 at 1:30 AM, Camera One said:

 (granted, I haven't actually read the comics).

I have, and they're awesome.

On 12/7/2017 at 1:30 AM, Camera One said:

I saw for Buffy Season 9 that one of the writers was Andrew Chambliss and Jane Espenson was involved as well. 

Jane Espenson was involved in the original Buffy TV show, too, and Dollhouse and Battlestar Galactica, and Andrew Chambliss was involved in Dollhouse. They're good writers who do the best with the material A&E give them. I usually look forward to an Espenson episode.

[Camera One]

Yes, Buffy was where I knew Jane Espenson from before "Once".  I never watched "Dollhouse", though I considered it.

[Noneofyourbusiness]

2 hours ago, Camera One said:

Does anyone know if "Tangled: The Series" will bring the awesome storyline from "One Little Tear" into Season 2?   So we will slowly see how Rapunzel became Lady Tremaine in cartoon form.  Let's write some letters to Disney asking for this!

I know you're kidding, but that wouldn't work even if you were serious because Tangled: The Series is a prequel to Tangled Ever After. It would be fun to troll them with a fake campaign, though.

2 hours ago, Camera One said:

Yes, Buffy was where I knew Jane Espenson from before "Once".  I never watched "Dollhouse", though I considered it.

Well worth it! A lot of people say it gets good in episode six "Man on the Street" but really it's good from the start, you just need to have an attention span. Those so-called "standalone" episodes are necessary.

[Camera One]

I just finished watching "Buffy" Season 1.  I really liked it.  It was fun, witty, engaging and all the characters were likeable (to me).  I liked the standalone nature of the show, and occasional episodes dealing with the season arc.  I think "Once" could have benefited from the mixed standalone/serialized format in Season 2 and onwards, so there wouldn't be this constant need to contrive scenarios and surprise "twists" to drive the plot episode after episode. 

I don't think I will rewatch the whole "Buffy" series since I'm not generally a fan of shows with constant death and it gets especially depressing after Angelus emerges.  Maybe I'll borrow Season 2 and watch a few episodes.  The first episode of "Buffy" I ever watched was "Incan Mummy Girl" (Season 2, Episode 4)... that was when I started the show and I watched until the Season 7 finale despite the declining quality and the fact that I generally don't like horror type shows with a high body count.  So I feel the need to watch Season 2 Episode 1-3 for completion sake.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Camera One

[Noneofyourbusiness]

39 minutes ago, Camera One said:

I generally don't like horror type shows with a high body count.

Neither does my Mom, but Buffy isn't really peg-downable like that.

She and I first got into it by watching the first season on DVD, and then got the DVDs of all the other seasons and Angel. Now we've watched them about four times. It's our favorite show of all time.

I even have the same birthday as Buffy the character. And the first birthday episode, "Surprise", fell on that day twice in our watches just by accident.

[Camera One]

Adam tweeted he watched the new Star Wars movie, and I wonder if any "That's a great idea for Once" goes through his mind when he watches stuff like that.  Still hopeful for a Season 8 that takes place in a Galaxy Far Far Away?  After all, Rumple is looking for The Guardian of the Galaxy.  We can find out how Jim Hawkins in "Treasure Planet" became Darth Vader, how Lilo is Henry's other daughter, how Jacinda's magic blue dress came from Pandora, how Anastasia still lives in Tomorrowland, and how Whook knew Kirk and Spock from the Wish Realm.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Camera One

[Noneofyourbusiness]

I actually thought they might use Tomorrowland at some point.

[Camera One]

I don't watch "The Walking Dead" but I thought it was interesting to read some of the fallout from their shocker fall finale featuring a character death, yet the big finale did not give a boost to viewership.  

The showrunner's responses seem to mirror A&E in some ways:

[Showrunner Gimple] told the Hollywood Reporter that he and the writers made the decision because “"It's all having to do the greater story of the season. It will be very apparent, the relationship of this awful incident — this very intense story turn — to the greater story.  I don't even need to answer because I know as you're watching it into the next half of the season that you'll get it. It has everything to do with what happens throughout the rest of season eight.

Just like A&E... you viewers will get it when you watch the rest of the season.  LOL at the "I don't even need to answer" bit. 

And then, this:

In his Hollywood Reporter interview, Gimple said he believes The Walking Dead can last into ninth and 10th seasons and beyond.

I guess he's a never-ending well of ideas, as well.  Except he has it easier in some ways since he could use material from the comic.

And look at this quote.

There's always been a long-term plan in place; I don't know about always, but I've had one for a long time. I will say that that long-term plan has always had crazy iterations, like a garden of forking paths. There might be a lot of different ways to the very, very endgame.  And sometimes, even tell those moments from the comic that I love so much in different ways to surprise people who are so familiar with the book. But as far as the long-term plan, it's a series of long-term plans, and we'll see which one we wind up going with. 

So a long-term plan which is all over the place.... the garden of forking paths, eh?  And there it is, the surprise factor.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Camera One

[jhlipton]

On 12/11/2017 at 7:55 PM, Camera One said:

I don't think I will rewatch the whole "Buffy" series

There are a couple of episodes that are worth watching even if you don't watch the whole series.  "Fear Itself", "Restless", "The Wish" and "Doppergangerland" (a twofer pair of episodes), and "Superstar".  For the sads, watch "The Body"; for the horror, watch "Hush" -- the most terrifying episode of them all, but still ripe with humor.

[CCTC]

I did not watch Buffy much after the high school years, but was always told to watch Hush and finally did last summer.  It was genuinely creepy with some dark humor.  It deserves its accolades.  

[Mabinogia]

The high school years on Buffy were the best but I did enjoy Anya in the later years. And yes, "Hush" is wonderful. So well done. I'm not usually a fan of gimmicky episodes, like musical episodes or homage episodes, or episodes with no words, but "Hush" blew me away. So creative and creepy and yet with that Buffy humor. 

[KingOfHearts]

Quote

"The Wish"

Ah, yes. Funny how the Wish Realm worked so well on BTVS but turned out to be horrible on OUAT. 

Edited December 14, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Souris]

"Hush" is my favorite Buffy ep. And boy were the Gentlemen creepy as hell. Just thinking about them gives me the wiggins.

[Camera One]

I don't remember which thread we were talking about "Riverdale" and how it has nothing to do with the Archie comics.  I thought the Jimmy Fallon parody of Riverdale with the Peanuts characters as teenagers was amusing.  It reminded me of "Once" because it's not too hard to basically use a bunch of existing characters' names and appearance, include some surface characteristics, and bam, you have a "clever" re-interpretation with your own "twists".  That's basically what Once does with fairy tale and Disney characters.  

[Noneofyourbusiness]

4 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

Ah, yes. Funny how the Wish Realm worked so well on BTVS but turned out to be horrible on OUAT. 

Because they were actually consistent.

[KingOfHearts]

10 hours ago, Camera One said:

I don't remember which thread we were talking about "Riverdale" and how it has nothing to do with the Archie comics.  I thought the Jimmy Fallon parody of Riverdale with the Peanuts characters as teenagers was amusing.  It reminded me of "Once" because it's not too hard to basically use a bunch of existing characters' names and appearance, include some surface characteristics, and bam, you have a "clever" re-interpretation with your own "twists".  That's basically what Once does with fairy tale and Disney characters.  

I just finished S1 of Riverdale. I'm usually not into teen dramas, but it was so over-the-top soap opera that I found it somewhat entertaining. The characters and their families were cartoonishly dysfunctional. (Which fits since it's based on a comic strip.) The tone was a little more focused than OUAT's in that it didn't cycle through fifty different genres. OUAT gets to be really soap-opera-ish, yet never commits to any sort of direction.

Quote

Because they were actually consistent.

Yeah. There was never a question of whether it was real or "fake". Cordelia never killed anybody just to prove a point. 

Edited December 14, 2017 by KingOfHearts

[Shanna Marie]

1 hour ago, KingOfHearts said:

There was never a question of whether it was real or "fake". Cordelia never killed anybody just to prove a point. 

That weird mix of real and "fake" is increasingly weird the more we learn about the Once Wishverse. The Charmings were fake, so their deaths don't matter, and I suppose Henry is also fake so it didn't matter that he was left an orphan and a king as a teenager (I wouldn't mind getting to see what's going on with vengeful King Henry). But Robin was real enough to leave the Wishverse and then get a happy ending with the Evil Queen, and Hook is real enough that he had an entire past before the Wishverse was created, in which he left that realm to go to another world and father and raise a child. That backstory makes his encounter with Emma rather sad, and makes Emma look like a jerk for the assumptions she made. She was acting like he'd become a useless drunk because he hadn't met her, when really he'd already turned his life around, given up revenge, given up everything he owned, and raised a child, and he'd become a drunk because he'd lost his child and was cruelly separated from her by a curse. But to Emma, it was all a cautionary tale about how her Hook could end up fat if he didn't lay off the rum and desserts. Of course, they obviously had no idea what WHook's past was when they wrote that, so it doesn't fit at all, and I'm still not sure how he can have interacted with another world in the history of that world when he was created much more recently, and they'd established that genies can't change history.

[jhlipton]

18 hours ago, Souris said:

"Hush" is my favorite Buffy ep. And boy were the Gentlemen creepy as hell. Just thinking about them gives me the wiggins.

Glad to help!!!
For those watching for the first time, be warned.  The show takes a serious dive

Spoiler

(just after Buffy does -- LOL)

and Seasons 6 and 7 (Sux and SuxMore, as I call them) are nowhere near as good as the previous ones.  You do get bright spots, as with "Once More With Feeling" -- which shows how to do a musical episode right, but they are few and far between.

[KingOfHearts]

1 hour ago, jhlipton said:

and Seasons 6 and 7 (Sux and SuxMore, as I call them) are nowhere near as good as the previous ones.  You do get bright spots, as with "Once More With Feeling" -- which shows how to do a musical episode right, but they are few and far between.

I stopped watching in Season 6, mostly due to its removal on Netflix. Right before it went away it was a struggle for me. It was super depressing and Buffy became the brood-master. (I really despise those kinds of characters, even if their brooding is warranted.)

[Camera One]

8 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

I stopped watching in Season 6, mostly due to its removal on Netflix. Right before it went away it was a struggle for me. It was super depressing and Buffy became the brood-master. (I really despise those kinds of characters, even if their brooding is warranted.)

I disowned the series by mid-Season 6.  Did you catch the musical episode before it left Netflix?  That was Episode 6 in Season 6.  I think my feelings for "Buffy" tanked even lower than for "Once" by the Season 6 finale.  That's why I was pleasantly surprised when I watched Season 1.  It brought some of the positive feelings I used to have for the show.

[KingOfHearts]

9 minutes ago, Camera One said:

I disowned the series by mid-Season 6.  Did you catch the musical episode before it left Netflix?  That was Episode 6 in Season 6.  I think my feelings for "Buffy" tanked even lower than for "Once" by the Season 6 finale.  That's why I was pleasantly surprised when I watched Season 1.  It brought some of the positive feelings I used to have for the show.

I've watched a lot of clips of the musical episode on YouTube. It's funny how BTVS and OUAT had their musical episodes right around the same time - in Season 6 after they both started sucking. I too have a greater fondness for OUAT, probably because it never harped too much on the depressing realism. BTVS S1 was great because it was fun and adventurous without losing the serious drama completely. I still enjoyed S2, S3, and most of S5. 

[daxx]

Saw Star Wars yesterday. I’m conflicted, ha! That freakin word.

 

Spoiler

There were moments of brilliance and beautiful moments, genuinely funny moments. Then there was character assassination, forced humor, terrible pacing in the middle and totally pointless long, boring side quests. I swear, if it wasn’t for what they did to Luke I would probably still like the movie.

But I just can’t, it’s too far, I just can’t take that step, that was not the Luke that walked into the emperors trap and handed his light saber to Darth Vader believing he can still reach him.

[Shanna Marie]

Strangely, something in The Last Jedi got me thinking about this show. It's all about the setups and payoffs, and how to do them and how not to do them. Spoilers for the big Shocking!Twist in the movie:
 

Spoiler

 

I was impressed by how well the movie set up the payoff that Luke was actually Force-projecting himself into the battle and wasn't really physically present. For one thing, they did enough to set up the possibility that he'd changed his mind, cleaned himself up, and come to join the battle. They'd shown the glimpse of the X-wing under water, and we'd already seen Yoda raise his X-wing from a swamp, so we know it's possible. It wasn't too hard to imagine that after he burned the tree, Yoda said something like, "Now, come, raise your ship we must. Need you, the galaxy does." So that possibility did exist. But they also set up the Force projection with Rey and Kylo Ren, where they saw each other, they were able to touch physically, and Luke saw Kylo Ren, so it wasn't just a vision on Rey's part. The neat thing was, there was a vital plot point to all that, so it wasn't just setting up Luke's use of it later. If Luke had flown his X-wing to join the battle, there still would have been a reason for all the Force projecting.

I couldn't help but think that if A&E had written this, Luke would have flown there because they wouldn't have realized that they'd actually set up something cool that could have been used later with all the Force projecting, and they'd have wanted to repeat the Darth Vader vs. Obi Wan battle from the first movie, and would have had Luke vanish as his cloak fluttered to the ground after what should have been a killing blow. But we wouldn't have seen the X-wing under water to suggest how he got there. When people asked on Twitter later, they'd have said something like, "Luke's X-wing was still there, since that's how he got to that planet in the first place." And yet the rocks would still have been blocking the way out, because we needed to see Rey lift them, but that was supposed to have been the way Luke got in, so that also would have been addressed on Twitter when people asked: "Obviously, Luke moved the rocks out of the way, but he put them back." Or if they had done the astral Force projection thing, they wouldn't have set it up at all. We'd never have seen anyone do anything quite like that. It would have come out of nowhere because they'd have been afraid that showing it was possible would spoil the surprise twist.

And the thing is, setting it up made it more satisfying rather than less. I figured it out fairly early, but that didn't spoil it for me. It meant I got the same "Oh, Luke's not really there!" thrill earlier than a lot of people, but then I got a second "Oh, I was right!" thrill when it was revealed. The friend I was with didn't figure it out, but then had some fun going back and thinking about the clues that were there, like the way Kylo Ren left red footprints during the fight but Luke didn't (that was some clever camera work, with the camera focusing on Kylo Ren's feet and the red behind them while Luke's feet were in the corner, so you saw them out of the corner of your eye. There was no red, but they were also almost out of frame so that it wasn't super obvious that there was no red unless you'd guessed something and were looking for it).

The other thing that amused me is that Rey has a similar backstory to Hook, with parents abandoning and selling her. That is, if it's true and it wasn't just Kylo Ren feeding into her insecurities and fears by negging her. I think they left it open enough that JJ Abrams will have room to go either way in the next movie. It could be taken at face value or could be treated as a mind game.

 

[KAOS Agent]

There was an interview with Rian Johnson about setups/payoffs. The movie was meant for multiple viewings and he wanted it to continue to be interesting each time you watch.  One of the producers said that the first time you watch the movie, you're spending time processing the story and just keeping up with the various plotlines and it can be overwhelming, but that when you watch it again, you can see all the little details seeded throughout the movie that you missed the first time. All of it was very deliberate. Of course, that takes planning and writers that aren't easily distracted by the newest shiny toy that comes their way.

I also thought it was amusing that he brought up a minor flaw in the movie - the type that nitpicky fans pick up on - and admitted it was a mistake and that something else should have happened. It's nice that he wasn't defensive about it and pointed it out himself.