OUAT vs. Other Fairy Tales: Compare & Contrast

[KingOfHearts]

1 hour ago, Shanna Marie said:

There's a BBC radio drama that's a retelling of Snow White from the queen's perspective available online for the next week or so. You can find it here. It's hard to describe. It's definitely not a Regina-like queen, maybe closer to Cora in her ambitious barmaid time. And the king is rather creepy. But I think they do a good job of walking the fine line of showing sympathy for the queen's position while not ignoring the fact that she does horrible things. It's one hour long and worth a listen if you're interested in different retellings of fairy tales.

Is it weird I found Regina to be most sympathetic in S1, when her character was more tragic and less "misunderstood"?

Edited January 24, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

I am watching the Special Features on the "Fantastic Beasts" DVD. J.K. Rowling clearly knows the characters' histories, but a lot of the backstories didn't make it into the film, which contributed to why I didn't feel like I knew much about the main characters even at the end of the movie.  She even says in a featurette, "This is backstory you don't learn in the movie, but I know it."  It's a little strange in some ways.  Though I think having this entire universe plotted out in her notebooks maybe contributed to her ability to write this new story which believably takes place in that universe... she mentions how she had the American President of Witchcraft in her notebook and this is the first time she was able to use her.  

I do think it's interesting that in starting this new franchise, she didn't try at all to replicate any of the patterns of the Harry Potter story.  There are no kids, it's not set at a school, etc.  This is a very different approach from the Season 7 requel.  "Fantastic Beasts" also for the first time explored a character who was a regular guy who knew nothing about magic.  This sort of reminded me of the Hyperion Heights situation, where they're in Seattle; the difference being A&E chose to completely ignore the real world and real people aspect of the setup.  I also found it funny how the actors said in the DVD interviews that JK Rowlings couldn't help but tell them where their various characters would go in future films.  Contrast that with A&E's #NoSpoiler policy, even with their actors.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

10 hours ago, Camera One said:

"Fantastic Beasts" also for the first time explored a character who was a regular guy who knew nothing about magic. 

That was my favorite aspect of the movie. It was so well done. The character didn't turn into a caricature or the butt of jokes. I can't say I loved the movie, but I enjoyed it. I'm not sure hiring Johnny Depp to play Grindelwald for 6 more movies (?) was the brightest idea. I don't want to comment on the nature of the allegations against him, but it was horrible timing IMO. Besides, my idea of Grindelwald was so different from reading the books, and Depp tends to bring a brand of crazy to his roles that I'm not sure will fit the tone of Rowling's magical world. However, she knows her characters best, and she seems fine with the choice (or maybe she didn't actually have a say in hiring him for the role, and she's merely toeing the PR line).

10 hours ago, Camera One said:

I also found it funny how the actors said in the DVD interviews that JK Rowlings couldn't help but tell them where their various characters would go in future films.  Contrast that with A&E's #NoSpoiler policy, even with their actors.

IIRC, for the HP movies, she'd told Alan Rickman where Snape's ultimate loyalties lay. This kind of information would be invaluable to help the actors figure out how they're going to play an ambiguous role. LOST tended to keep their actors in the dark too. Apparently, Terry O'Quinn didn't know he was actually playing the Smoke Monster in the final season. That seemed really weird to me, but it worked on-screen. Whenever A&E keep important information from the actors (like the Zarian situation), it ends up being a mess. And half the time it's because they're just making it up as they go along. 

[KingOfHearts]

7 hours ago, Rumsy4 said:

Whenever A&E keep important information from the actors (like the Zarian situation), it ends up being a mess. And half the time it's because they're just making it up as they go along. 

Yet they told Lana that Regina killed Marian, even though Regina didn't even remember the event.

[Camera One]

13 hours ago, Rumsy4 said:

LOST tended to keep their actors in the dark too. Apparently, Terry O'Quinn didn't know he was actually playing the Smoke Monster in the final season. That seemed really weird to me, but it worked on-screen. 

A&E took some of the worst aspects of "Lost" and left out all the good aspects.

Your post got me looking up some old interviews with Terry O'Quinn, and I found some interesting quotes.

Quote

O'Quinn: I didn't even know. When they cast me, I didn't know I had been in a wheelchair. I don't know if they knew. [They didn't, we later heard showrunner Damon Lindelof explain that J.J. Abrams turned to him during production on Lost's pilot and pointed to O'Quinn, who was sitting in the wreckage of the plane quietly during a break, and said, "That man has a secret." When Lindelof asked what that secret was, Abrams replied, "That's up to you to figure out."]

I don't blame them as much for not knowing this, since it was the beginning of the series and Lindelof and even J.J. Abrams parachuted into "Lost" relatively late in the development process.  

I do find this comment interesting, though.

Quote

O'Quinn (Continued): I liked being surprised... It's more interesting to operate from my own character's perception and know what he knows. They used to ask me, "Do you want to know where it's going?" I'd day, "Don't tell me where it's going, because I would just as soon be surprised. I'm going to know anyway when I get the script, but I don't want to start playing that in advance." I just want to play what I know. You can only play your history. You can't play your future. I like just playing my history.

IGN: That history, when it was revealed, was quite complex, yes? So how do you handle that?

O'Quinn: Yes. Well, then you say, "I should have been doing this all along. I should have been playing it this way." It was like that one example in Lost. There was a scene they shot where, early on, Locke wakes up from the plane crash, wiggles his toes and stands up. Then he runs and helps Jack pull someone up. Well, I didn't know at that time I was supposed to be in a wheelchair. I would have run differently had I known that. But in the end, I let the audience handle those problems. It's kind of like, "Well, what if your history turns up later?" That means you would have -- I mean, the writers, that's their problem... If it's in the script I do it. If it's not, I don't worry about it.

As he said, it's the writers' problem, but the actor knowing certain history would have played things differently.  

In that quote, it seems like they did eventually ask if he wanted to know where things were going.

Edited January 25, 2018 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

7 hours ago, Camera One said:

A&E took some of the worst aspects of "Lost" and left out all the good aspects.

Absolutely!! They keep doubling down on their mistakes even now. 

7 hours ago, Camera One said:

I don't blame them as much for not knowing this, since it was the beginning of the series and Lindelof and even J.J. Abrams parachuted into "Lost" relatively late in the development process.  

Actually, JJ Abrams was key in developing LOST (it was initially planned as a miniseries), but he handed the reins to Lindeloff early on, who then called in Carlton Cuse to help him co-run the Show. JJ tended to do that.

IIRC, the LOST writers didn’t know what was below the Hatch at the end of Season 1. I think all writing (and especially TV) has a lot of “making things up as they go along”. One can have a broad overview, but not every single aspect plotted out. The main misstep in LOST was the writers delaying answers to most of their mysteries to the final season. When the answers finally came, it was too little too late for a lot of the audience because of the humongous build-up. The Jacob/MiB and Richard Alpert backstories would’ve fit better in Season 5. The Whispers should’ve been explained three seasons back. The Temple inhabitants should’ve been brought in way sooner. That would’ve given them more time in Season 6 to focus on things like Charlie’s ring, and who shot the outrigger passengers. 

Expectations were too high for LOST to have planned everything in advance. But it’s just not practical in writing a long-running TV show. Actors leave. Characters evolve on-screen. Showrunners change. What matters is when writers can stick to the overall tone and themes, and stay true to characterization when developing new plots. Sometimes, it’s actually bad to stick to original plans (HIMYM), but rather have the flexibility to change them as characters evolve over the years (Dawson’s Creek).

Where A&E and other bad show runners fail, is when they stop caring about consistency or natural progression in character development. Hence we have the eggnapping and Emma’s persistent Walls. Rumple flip flopping every season, and becoming the best husband in one long flashback episode. That shows the writers are too lazy or afraid to take risks and evolve their characters. 

[Camera One]

1 hour ago, Rumsy4 said:

Actually, JJ Abrams was key in developing LOST (it was initially planned as a miniseries), but he handed the reins to Lindeloff early on, who then called in Carlton Cuse to help him co-run the Show. JJ tended to do that.

I had the impression from the DVD extra "The Genesis of Lost" that J.J. Abrams came in to do damage control because the original script/development was such a disaster.  J.J. reworked the original stuff and came up with the premise that they eventually ended up with, but it sounded like he was doing this on the side and all this happened very quickly.  They brought Damon on and they brainstormed for a weekend and the pilot was shot within a month.  With such a short time frame and the main writers coming in so late in the process by happenstance, it explains why practically nothing was planned out.  This was a rare situation that for me, it didn't matter as much, since I always enjoyed "Lost" as more a journey than a destination.

A&E had a different situation which should have resulted in a more clear and complete plan.  They had been nursing this idea for years, and A&E were the actual originators and not people brought in to flesh out some other person's messed up work.  So it's hard for me to understand how the show was already falling apart in by Season 2.

[andromeda331]

4 hours ago, Camera One said:

I had the impression from the DVD extra "The Genesis of Lost" that J.J. Abrams came in to do damage control because the original script/development was such a disaster.  J.J. reworked the original stuff and came up with the premise that they eventually ended up with, but it sounded like he was doing this on the side and all this happened very quickly.  They brought Damon on and they brainstormed for a weekend and the pilot was shot within a month.  With such a short time frame and the main writers coming in so late in the process by happenstance, it explains why practically nothing was planned out.  This was a rare situation that for me, it didn't matter as much, since I always enjoyed "Lost" as more a journey than a destination.

A&E had a different situation which should have resulted in a more clear and complete plan.  They had been nursing this idea for years, and A&E were the actual originators and not people brought in to flesh out some other person's messed up work.  So it's hard for me to understand how the show was already falling apart in by Season 2.

I think its because A&E's original idea kept getting rejected.  That's when they worked with Damon who helped them develop season one. Then show was a hit, Damon left and A&E got the idea they could now do what they wanted. Somehow in all the seasons that followed it still hasn't occurred to them that was the problem. 

[andromeda331]

6 hours ago, Rumsy4 said:

Absolutely!! They keep doubling down on their mistakes even now. 

That's that part that still surprises me. I went into the show thinking they learned from their mistakes from LOST. Nope, the double downed on the mistakes made on LOST.     

[Camera One]

I saw a trailer of "A Wrinkle in Time".  It's astounding how many stories Disney has the rights to.  If it does well, maybe Season 8 can be Lucy trying to find and save Henry in an alternate dimension with the help of 3 of the Coven (Mrs. Who, Mrs. Whatsit and Mrs. Which), and they are joined by Lilo, Jim Hawkins from "Treasure Planet", Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, Buzz Lightyear, WALL-E, and Big Hero 6 on a journey aboard the now-space-travel-enabled Jolly Roger, visiting Tomorrowland, Tatooine and Pandora, where greedy space settlers led by Governor Radcliffe threaten to invade the lands of Pocahontas, until her evil rival Moana casts a Dark Curse that sends everyone to... Wild West Texas, where they all have Cursed identities.

Edited January 28, 2018 by Camera One

[Camera One]

I just finished watching all the special features on the "Fantastic Beast" DVD, even though I didn't intend to.  It's the rare case of me actually appreciating/liking a movie more after finding out how much thought they put into every element of it.   With the original Harry Potter movies, I enjoyed the movies but overall felt they were lacking compared to the books.  So it was different with this movie in the same universe, but without having to live up to any actual source material.

That got me thinking whether someone else in the future could set a new story in the "Once" universe, now that there could be three billion versions of Cinderella and Snow White out there.  

[Guest]

On ‎1‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 6:02 PM, Camera One said:

That got me thinking whether someone else in the future could set a new story in the "Once" universe, now that there could be three billion versions of Cinderella and Snow White out there.  

The "Once" universe will go on the scrap heap of shows that had potential but ultimately didn't live up to it.

I think someday, someone will revisit the idea of mashing up fairy tales again but they will put a spin on the original tales.  Or maybe they'll take another shot at turning the Fables (DC comics) into a series.

Now that making TV and movie universes is such a thing, I bet someone at Disney wishes that they hadn't put fairy tales and folklore in the hands of A&E given their lack of talent at world building. 

Universal is trying to create a movie monsters universe.  DC is failing to create a movie universe for superheroes that rivals Marvel.  Marvel is failing to create a TV universe that rivals DC.  I could see either DC (via fables) or Disney (via every Disney movie ever made) trying to make another franchise.

[Camera One]

Definitely, there will be other attempts.  "Shrek" was mashing up fairytales before "Once".  "Descendants" also has a similar idea.  Though neither of those were serious dramas like "Once" was trying to be.  As shallow as "Once" is, it was a television show, so had the time to go ever slightly deeper.  I do give "Once" kudos for not going the super gory/violent route which is more the trend these days.  That approach can sometimes sap the magic out from an entire production (eg. the "Emerald City" TV show).

[KingOfHearts]

15 hours ago, Camera One said:

I do give "Once" kudos for not going the super gory/violent route which is more the trend these days.  That approach can sometimes sap the magic out from an entire production (eg. the "Emerald City" TV show).

To be fair, Emerald City had no idea what it was trying to accomplish. There are plenty of other shows (such as Game of Thrones) that do fantasy gore and violence well. EC failed both at doing that and adapting the Wizard of Oz.

Edited January 30, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[KingOfHearts]

Mini rant: There's this ongoing trend in villainous characters that they need to have a tragic backstory in order to be evil. It's not always to make them sympathetic, either. What's interesting is that both heroic and villainous characters can have past trauma that doesn't determine whether they go one way or the other. It normally presents them with a choice, the outcome of which is usually governed by their upbringing or other supporting circumstances. I don't understand why dark characters automatically need tragedy. Like, cool motive, still murder. It's hardly isolated to OUAT.

There are plenty of evil people that didn't experience a lot of hardships. They could be spoiled royals, for instance.

Edited February 1, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[Shanna Marie]

39 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

There are plenty of evil people that didn't experience a lot of hardships.

When you look at the people who are really evil on a big-picture scale (as opposed to low-level street-type crime), they generally come from a privileged background. Those are people who feel entitled and lack empathy.

[KingOfHearts]

2 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

When you look at the people who are really evil on a big-picture scale (as opposed to low-level street-type crime), they generally come from a privileged background. Those are people who feel entitled and lack empathy.

That's where I feel like there's such a disconnection between Regina's suffering and her choice to be the Evil Queen. There's Cora's abuse and seeing her boyfriend murdered in front of her eyes, but her wickedness is always focused on vanity and getting revenge against Snow. You'd think she was using Snow as a scapegoat in order to avoid dealing with her maternal issues, but the show never actually addressed this. It's hard for me to relate to Regina's legitimate suffering when it's all about the characteristics that are inherently not relatable. I don't need to relate to villains, but all those lingering shots of her lasagna tears are begging me to.

Edited February 1, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[tennisgurl]

I think thats one of the things that keeps me from really sympathizing with Regina, despite her past suffering. I've never really understood how exactly the bad things that happened to her really lead to her becoming the Evil Queen. I can guess (she lashes out at Snow/the world because she feels she cant lash out at her mom) and I dont need to have everything spelled out, but we need some idea on how we got from point A to point B. I dont mind villains who have tragic backstories or circumstances, but we have to see WHY that affected them, and how that lead them to being the way they are. That can lead to a tragic character, or at least add some moral grayness to the story. I have no idea how Regina being abused or losing her boyfriend lead to her becoming a mass murdering dictator. Considering how much A&E adore Regina, I still feel like we dont really know Regina and why she ticks. Its like they became so afraid to make her look bad, it actually hurt her character. 

Even in the Star Wars prequels, as lame as they were, I could understand how Anakin became evil and how his traumas affected him. It wasn't handled well or anything, but I could see how one thing could lead to another, in ways that Regina never did. 

[KingOfHearts]

12 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

but we need some idea on how we got from point A to point B. I dont mind villains who have tragic backstories or circumstances, but we have to see WHY that affected them, and how that lead them to being the way they are. That can lead to a tragic character, or at least add some moral grayness to the story. I have no idea how Regina being abused or losing her boyfriend lead to her becoming a mass murdering dictator. Considering how much A&E adore Regina, I still feel like we dont really know Regina and why she ticks. Its like they became so afraid to make her look bad, it actually hurt her character. 

That's my major problem with tragic villain backstories. A lot of writers think that the mere existence of these is an explanation for why people go bad. It's not just a case of amateurs in the captain's chair, either. There's some really big blockbusters and TV shows that follow this belief. 

Quote

Even in the Star Wars prequels, as lame as they were, I could understand how Anakin became evil and how his traumas affected him. It wasn't handled well or anything, but I could see how one thing could lead to another, in ways that Regina never did. 

Anakin's story makes a thousand times more sense than Kylo Ren's. Kylo doesn't have it much better than Regina. "Oh Snoke got to him" is not a good enough explanation. That's like saying Rumple is totally responsible for the Evil Queen. While he had a hand in it, Regina wasn't a robot. She had plenty of people telling her she was making the wrong choices. 

As much hate as Anakin gets, his character is very believable to me.

Spoiler

The Last Jedi made Kylo's story even stupider. Luke pointed a lightsaber at him, so now he's a Darth Vader wannabe? We had to see more than that. Did Luke treat him like an outcast? How did Snoke manipulate him? What was the parenting situation with Leia and Han like? It's a lot of telling without showing, but I digress.

Edited February 2, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[Rumsy4]

14 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

Its like they became so afraid to make her look bad, it actually hurt her character. 

More like they became afraid to have her face any real consequence. So, they skipped the part where they were supposed to explain what made her go batshit Evil Queen, and started blaming her victims instead.

A recent example of this inversion was the Maleficent movie. It just turned the king of the fairy tale into a rapist, and gave Mal a tragic backstory. But at least there was an explanation. In the ONCE verse, that version of Mal would be both the rapist and the tragic victim.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Rumsy4

[Shanna Marie]

9 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

Even in the Star Wars prequels, as lame as they were, I could understand how Anakin became evil and how his traumas affected him. It wasn't handled well or anything, but I could see how one thing could lead to another, in ways that Regina never did. 

The Harry Potter series did it fairly well, with Harry and Voldemort having more or less the same backgrounds and showing that it was the choices they made that made the difference between good and evil. Yeah, Voldemort had a sad background, but so did Harry. Voldemort lashed out and tried to gain power while alienating everyone, while Harry became intensely loyal to the "family" he created.

If they wanted to show Regina's sad background as a reason -- an excuse -- for her evil, they shouldn't have given the good guys even worse backgrounds.

[Rumsy4]

6 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

they shouldn't have given the good guys even worse backgrounds.

and made her responsible for it.

[tennisgurl]

2 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

The Harry Potter series did it fairly well, with Harry and Voldemort having more or less the same backgrounds and showing that it was the choices they made that made the difference between good and evil. Yeah, Voldemort had a sad background, but so did Harry. Voldemort lashed out and tried to gain power while alienating everyone, while Harry became intensely loyal to the "family" he created.

 

Yeah, I really liked that. JK Rowlings said in one interview that she deliberately made it so Voldemort and Harry had similar backstories, to show that people become good or bad due to choices, and not circumstances. While on Once, the writers think that Regina can literally get away with murder because of her sad backstory, while ignoring the fact that just about every character has had it just as bad, if not worse, and they didn't become demented mass murderers. In fact, Regina herself caused a lot of those sad backstories! 

[KingOfHearts]

14 minutes ago, Rumsy4 said:

More like they became afraid to have her face any real consequence. So, they skipped the part where they were supposed to explain what made her go batshit Evil Queen, and started blaming her victims instead.

There's a disconnect between her wanting to run off with Rocinante in 2x02 and deciding to marry Leopold. We don't actually see why she decides to stay with him and be the Queen she didn't want to be. One day she wants to be a free woman, and the next she's Cora 2.0. That's why I don't get the whole "boohoo, Leopold doesn't love me" crap. She didn't want to marry him. She didn't have to marry him. She was only with him to do what Cora wanted her to do.

Edited February 2, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[CCTC]

If Dumbledore would have liked liked Voldemort's lasagna things would have been so different.

Snape was a great of example of how to write a gray character.  Actually, in a way so was Dumbledore.   I would not say he was necessarily gray, but the flaws they introduced or more accurately revealed later had always been there and fit the character and were not just for shock value and was not done to make Voldemort look sympathetic.  

[Camera One]

I was reading a review of the Aladdin stage production in the LA Times:

Quote

Aladdin's chronic lying to Jasmine seems a bit harder to forgive. Or maybe the obligatory forgiveness she provides isn't convincing in the context of the high romantic standards she has spent most of the story asserting. Or maybe it's just that by embroidering on the movie's plot, this stage version exposes some of its holes.

For whatever reason, the musical left me more concerned about the marital future of this attractive couple. The fun curtain call intervenes before we have to watch them 10 years in, their harem pants a bit tighter, sniping at each other over baklava as she lectures him about honesty and he grouses that he'll never have a friend like the Genie again.

This is true.  This was already a minor problem in the cartoon but a bigger one in the expanded version of the story in the stage musical.  It was a problem that "Once" could have explored or improved upon.  

[Mitch]

On 1/13/2018 at 1:57 AM, Camera One said:

Mombi from Oz

- Circe

- Morgan Le Fay

Those three would made Gothel, the EQ and Zelena all road kill!

I can't believe they never brought in fairytale characters who arent that well known (well, okay, I know...its not a plastic plaything from Disney...) they could have done a ton of things with Mombi and the Gnome King, etc. Princess Langwediere is the kind of dark thing this show should have done (and might have actually attracted the kind of demos they want on a Friday nightll) and stay away from fake Disney bland cheeriness all the while Regina is killing people by the hundreds.

Has anyone seen that there is streaming service called "Britbox," that has a show called "Dickensian" it is a mashup of all the Dickens characters living together on one fictional street. Sounds familiar.  It looks like Once with some imagination and a brain...(and not so corporatley bland...)

..

[CCTC]

I don't think I hated 3B, but remember being disappointed what a uninspired job they did with creating the OZ world and not using the potential of all the interesting characters there.

Same with Camelot - but had lower expectations at that time.  Too bad, because I thought the Camelot actors were pretty decent.

I flipped by Dickensian on PBS.  It looked interesting, but it was in the middle of an episode and half way through the series.  I should see if I can use Britbox of find it somewhere else.

[Mitch]

On 1/23/2018 at 8:20 PM, Shanna Marie said:

And the king is rather creepy.

I never understood why they didn't make Snow's father intentionally creepy.  He came off as a combo of a moron (now we know where Snow got it) and a perve...(come on..there is no way this old man married a buxom young hottie to just. "Give my daughter a mother.")  Regina's redemption would make more sense if she was forced into a marriage with this creepy old guy who only truly loved his daughter and she was indeed not able to live up to his first wife's image. Doesn't mean that eventually killing him and turning EVIL was a good thing but it would give everything more depth.

[jhlipton]

1 hour ago, Mitch said:

they could have done a ton of things with Mombi and the Gnome King, etc. Princess Langwediere is the kind of dark thing this show should have done

..

Emerald City, for all its flaws, showed what great characters there are in Oz, and how they could be grey -- not "heroes" or "villains"..

[Shanna Marie]

2 hours ago, Mitch said:

Has anyone seen that there is streaming service called "Britbox," that has a show called "Dickensian" it is a mashup of all the Dickens characters living together on one fictional street.

My PBS station ran this during December. It was interesting, if a bit frustrating, because it's mostly backstory to the Dickens novels, largely setting up how Lady Deadlock from Bleak House got into the situation she was in for that book and how Miss Havisham got jilted. That meant you knew their fates were sealed, and you could see the train wreck coming. I thought the show made the events rather obvious. There were more red flags around Miss Havisham's fiance than in your typical May Day parade in a communist country. Everyone, including her dog, warned her about that guy, and yet she was shocked into insanity when he jilted her. While it was interesting to have all the Dickens characters woven together, the fact that their outcomes were already set and they didn't veer from the novels meant it got almost too dreary to watch. I ended up having to use it as background noise for doing other things, since shouting at the characters didn't seem to do any good.

[KingOfHearts]

4 hours ago, jhlipton said:

Emerald City, for all its flaws, showed what great characters there are in Oz, and how they could be grey -- not "heroes" or "villains"..

Even in the books, Oz didn't seem that black and white. The "villains" were simply antagonists. The characters didn't debate moral implications all that much, I seem to recall. Same with Alice in Wonderland. While it was still clear who we weren't supposed to be rooting for (except in Emerald City, which was one of its biggest flaws), the authors didn't drill clear cut values into our heads. There wasn't some grand redemption arc for the Wicked Witch of the West or the Queen of Hearts. Alice and Dorothy weren't preaching "hope" everywhere. The terms "hero" and "villain" weren't thrown around in every other scene. Everything just flowed from the protagonist's point of view.

[jhlipton]

8 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

Even in the books, Oz didn't seem that black and white. The "villains" were simply antagonists. The characters didn't debate moral implications all that much, I seem to recall. Same with Alice in Wonderland. While it was still clear who we weren't supposed to be rooting for (except in Emerald City, which was one of its biggest flaws), the authors didn't drill clear cut values into our heads. There wasn't some grand redemption arc for the Wicked Witch of the West or the Queen of Hearts. Alice and Dorothy weren't preaching "hope" everywhere. The terms "hero" and "villain" weren't thrown around in every other scene. Everything just flowed from the protagonist's point of view.

This is even more true in Carroll's later books.  None of the Black pieces in "Through the Looking Glass" (Queen, King and Knight) are evil --they're mostly befuddled, the one White piece I remember, the Queen, was largely a place holder.  Sylvie and Bruno has nefarious characters, the Vice-Warden and his wife, but they aren't "villains" in any real sense.

[Camera One]

With the success of reality shows in the Friday 8pm timeslot, "Once" could have been retooled for the second half of Season 7.  The first episode back could be "The Coven Tank", where Mother Gothel, Lady Tremaine, The Evil Queen and The Wicked Witch of the West judge new business ventures in Hyperion Heights.  Will Jacinda and Tiana get their vote for their food Truck Rollin' Bayou?  And then the second episode back will be "Guardian Support".  The Author Henry competes against Mother Gothel to predict future plotlines, with the ability to be saved by 5 "Once Upon a Time" Writers who makes up the most unpredictable random things.  There could be an "Amazing Race" episode to see who could find the most MacGuffins, a "Survivor" Episode to see if Team Drizella or Team Anastasia gets the Immunity Cursed Memory Idol.  And finish off with "Hyperion Heights Idol" in Roni's bar where fairytale characters croon their favorite tunes for a chance to break the Curse.  

[jhlipton]

On 2/3/2018 at 3:48 PM, Camera One said:

And then the second episode back will be "Guardian Support".

Or "Who Will Be The Guardian?": Henry and Jacinda vs  Victoria and Lucy's dad plead their case to be Lucy's guardian.

[Shanna Marie]

They could certainly do some kind of Married at First Sight thing -- a magical object tells which two people are true love/soulmates, then we follow the early days of their relationship to see how accurate that match is.

Or, since this is ABC, do The Bachelor/Bachelorette, except instead of wasting all that time week after week on one-on-one dates, group dates, cocktail parties, and rose ceremonies, they just collect a bunch of people, and then in one thrilling episode use pixie dust or magical necklaces to tell us who the soulmate/true love is. We don't even need to see the couple interact. It will be an epic romance because we saw the pixie dust or saw the necklace light up. Except they already did that this season with Henry and Ella. Maybe that will be how Regina, Zelena, or Sabine get a love interest. It will be The Magical Bachelorette.

[KingOfHearts]

7 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

Or, since this is ABC, do The Bachelor/Bachelorette, except instead of wasting all that time week after week on one-on-one dates, group dates, cocktail parties, and rose ceremonies, they just collect a bunch of people, and then in one thrilling episode use pixie dust or magical necklaces to tell us who the soulmate/true love is. We don't even need to see the couple interact. It will be an epic romance because we saw the pixie dust or saw the necklace light up. Except they already did that this season with Henry and Ella. Maybe that will be how Regina, Zelena, or Sabine get a love interest. It will be The Magical Bachelorette.

But you know A&E would love Rumple to give Belle the rose.

[Shanna Marie]

It looks like whoever laid out these newspaper ads saw the season 7 premiere of Once Upon a Time:

[tennisgurl]

So, now that Once has officially left us, and sadly that means that soon our lovely, long suffering community will as well, what are some other shows that we could watch, or are watching? Ones that are better than Once, or even have the same "I hate you but I cant look away" charm at times? I would like to still see everyone around sometimes :) 

[daxx]

Unfortunately I’m not watching anything I feel the need to talk about or complain about. Either it’s light entertainment, binged Netflix that are over before I have time to analyze or well done dramas. 

I’ve only spent a lot of time on forums for Harry Potter books, Smallville and this show.

[Shanna Marie]

This is currently the only thing I'm really doing this kind of analysis for. I get into the boards for Game of Thrones sometimes when it's on. I skim over the boards for The Magicians but don't really have anything to say. Maybe Timeless when it comes back, and then it's about the history vs. what they show. We'll see how I take to the new cast of Doctor Who when it returns. I used to be involved in the TWOP forums for that, but didn't really follow that discussion over here. Instead, I just ended up making Facebook connections with the friends I made there, and now we seldom discuss Doctor Who at all. I'm really kind of blah on TV right now, which is why I'm letting my cable go now that it's no longer included in my HOA fees. I've found that lately I've watched a lot more non-fiction stuff, mostly documentaries on history or culture. The Smithsonian channel is probably what I'll miss most from cable.

[Rumsy4]

I'm really into The Good Place currently, and wandered over to its forum on PTV. Some posters from here already post there, but it doesn't have the same "homey" feel (probably because I don't have the pulse of that forum yet). The problem is--one season has only 13 episodes, so there are large swaths of time where there is nothing new to discuss. I also don't look at spoilers for that show. It's easy to catch up if you have Netflix, and NBC leaves new episodes up on its site for quite some time (I don't have cable either).

I'm also a big fan of Westworld. That has the same "problem" in having a limited number of episodes, plus it has huge gaps between seasons. 

So, unless a new LOST comes up, doing a rewatch of OUAT sounds like a good plan to keep this forum going for some time. I can't promise to rewatch all of Season 6 episodes, but other seasons should be fine. It will be interesting to see how little the Show holds up in retrospect. lol

Edited February 8, 2018 by Rumsy4

[jhlipton]

2 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

So, now that Once has officially left us, and sadly that means that soon our lovely, long suffering community will as well, what are some other shows that we could watch, or are watching? Ones that are better than Once, or even have the same "I hate you but I cant look away" charm at times? I would like to still see everyone around sometimes :) 

Replied in Meat Market

[KingOfHearts]

I just got caught up with Crazy Ex-Girlfriend. It really took a turn in S3. (There's only one episode left of this season.) It's frustating to watch the characters make the same mistakes repeatedly after supposedly having so much development. Many of the characters got watered down and don't have much of a reason to be there any more. I just don't care about any of the plots going on. The delusions of grandeur in S1 and parts of S2 were highly entertaining, but now the show takes itself so seriously that it's veered from the "musical comedy" genre a bit. The pacing of S3 has just been really bizarre. One thing it shares with OUAT is making characters "good", thereby sucking out most of what made them fun in the first place. 

Edited February 11, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[Shanna Marie]

18 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

One thing it shares with OUAT is making characters "good", thereby sucking out most of what made them fun in the first place. 

Though the nice thing about Crazy Ex-Girlfriend is that bad behavior gets called out. They have a character like White Josh, who's usually the voice of sanity and reason and who comments on the idiocy of the others. He also keeps getting to raise the "why are all my friends in love with this insane woman?" question. On OUAT, people aren't allowed to notice or comment on weird behavior.

[Camera One]

I was just reading "Puss in Boots", and this story would have been quite a fun one for "Once" to have done.  Henry could have tried to help Cinderella by posing as a Prince to attract and get secrets out of Drizella and Lady Tremaine.  Cinderella could have the cleverness of Puss in Boots and could have been Puss in Glass Slippers.  

[KingOfHearts]

22 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

Though the nice thing about Crazy Ex-Girlfriend is that bad behavior gets called out. They have a character like White Josh, who's usually the voice of sanity and reason and who comments on the idiocy of the others. He also keeps getting to raise the "why are all my friends in love with this insane woman?" question. On OUAT, people aren't allowed to notice or comment on weird behavior.

That's true most of the time. But, like White Josh, I begin to wonder why the character like Rebecca or bother to hang out with her.

[Camera One]

I guess these types of ideas run in the Horowitz family, though it could easily be an actual brainstorming session at his brother's show.

Josh Horowitz‏ @joshuahorowitz Feb 7

Josh Horowitz Retweeted MTV

I love Star Wars. And I love making my favorite actors do crazy things. So I really love this sketch I did with Domhnall Gleeson. I think you will too.

[daxx]

Still on my BSG Rewatch. Whatever faults this series has it’s very rewatchable. I’m aware of a few behind the scenes things since I used to download the podcast every week to my MP3 player and listen while I watched the toddlers play on the swing but it doesn’t take away from enjoying it. I find myself brought to tears by these wonderfully flawed human beings more often than not. Sometimes tears of joy sometimes sorrow. I am still frustrated by

Spoiler

The fact they separated Starbuck and Apollo and had them marry other people when those two had such impressive chemistry.

If you’ve never seen it give it a shot it’s on Amazon prime right now, the whole series.

Edited February 13, 2018 by daxx

[Rumsy4]

I haven't watched the whole series. Half-way through, the political angle got a bit boring for me. So, I ended up sampling here and there, and just watching season premieres, finales, and key episodes. I just wikied the episode summaries to make sure I was following the story. I never understood why people were pissed at how it ended. It seemed fine to me. At least with LOST, I get why people were upset and unhappy.