OUAT vs. Other Fairy Tales: Compare & Contrast

[KingOfHearts]

5 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

Its kind of crazy how much this show has affected me. It has really messed with how I look at media all over the place.

This show has made me loathe crappy villain insta-redemptions, contrivances, and plot holes. I can't seem to watch much of anything without that "disgruntled OUAT fan" lens. (Especially anything having to do with fantasy.)

Edited March 16, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[tennisgurl]

12 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

This show has made me loathe crappy villain insta-redemptions, contrivances, and plot holes. I can't seem to watch much of anything without that "disgruntled OUAT fan" lens. (Especially anything having to do with fantasy.)

We should all start a support group. "Hello my name is TennisGirl, and I am a disgruntled Once fan". 

[KingOfHearts]

2 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

We should all start a support group. "Hello my name is TennisGirl, and I am a disgruntled Once fan". 

"Hello, my name is KingOfHearts, and I shipped Outlaw Queen."

[tennisgurl]

3 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

"Hello, my name is KingOfHearts, and I shipped Outlaw Queen."

"Hello KingofHearts". We appreciate your honestly, and we`re here for you. 

[KingOfHearts]

17 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

"Hello KingofHearts". We appreciate your honestly, and we`re here for you. 

I'm using a pseudonym so my friends who watch good shows don't figure out I'm still watching the show everyone was supposed to quit three seasons ago.

Edited March 16, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[tennisgurl]

3 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

I'm using a pseudonym so my friends who watch good shows don't forget out I'm still watching the show everyone was supposed to quit three seasons ago.

I have no such shame. My friends know what I am, and I hope that they dont judge me too harshly. 

[KingOfHearts]

1 minute ago, tennisgurl said:

I have no such shame. My friends know what I am, and I hope that they dont judge me too harshly. 

My friends actually do judge me, LOL. I can't really blame them.

Edited March 16, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

3 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

My friends actually do judge me, LOL. I can't really blame them.

 

You can find belonging here in our Coven since we don't judge.  You can recognize us by our cups of cold beignets.

Edited March 16, 2018 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

4 hours ago, Camera One said:

You can find belonging here in our Coven since we don't judge.

True Witches of the Coven Don't Judge Each Other, They Judge Other People.

[KingOfHearts]

3 hours ago, Rumsy4 said:

True Witches of the Coven Don't Judge Each Other, They Judge Other People.

We don't judge villains who commit mass murder. We judge heroes who steal cookies from the cookie jar.

[Mabinogia]

1 hour ago, KingOfHearts said:

We don't judge villains who commit mass murder. We judge heroes who steal cookies from the cookie jar.

If a hero stole my cookies I would sentence him and everyone he has ever met or said hello to to endless tedium and boredom albeit in a cute seaside town because while I want to watch their torment, I also want to be surrounded by pretty scenery. Don't judge me for being evil. I had a bad childhood.

[KingOfHearts]

36 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

If a hero stole my cookies I would sentence him and everyone he has ever met or said hello to to endless tedium and boredom albeit in a cute seaside town because while I want to watch their torment, I also want to be surrounded by pretty scenery. Don't judge me for being evil. I had a bad childhood.

Ugh. My childhood was horrible too! My Royal parents never let me go see my boyfriend during tea time. I had to sip with my pinky out! Talk about torture! Those stinking heroes can leave their hovels any time to do God knows what. 

I think we need to find who's writing these stories and force- I mean ask- them nicely to write us happy endings. 

[Mabinogia]

3 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

Ugh. My childhood was horrible too! My Royal parents never let me go see my boyfriend during tea time. I had to sip with my pinky out!

OMG you absolutely MUST cast an evil curse against all who dare drink tea. They are clearly rubbing it in your face that you never got time with your one true love! Off with their heads! Out with their hearts! Weggies to all!!!!

Is Henry still The Author? Is "The Author" still a thing? If so, we WILL be having words. I get that the annoying child of his bland love interest was in a coma that spared us all from having to hear her constant whining, but geez man, give us our happy endings!

[jhlipton]

On 3/15/2018 at 4:05 PM, KingOfHearts said:

I lol'ed when I heard this quote from Nostalgia Critic's review of Alice Through the Looking Glass:

Quote

Remember all those decapitated heads in the first film? It's okay, because [the Red Queen] forgave [the White Queen] for the tart!

Remind anyone of anyone?

The Red Queen of TTLG is not the same as the Queen of Hearts from AIW.  Blergh.  One is a card and the other a chess piece!!!!  So the White Queen can't forgive the Queen of Hearts for anything!  (And the Red Queen isn't cruel -- she's Alice's mentor.)

[Guest]

I got to watch an entire conversation about "walls" tonight on Lucifer.

[tennisgurl]

I heard someone drop the “All Magic Comes with a Price” line on Legends of Tomorrow tonight. I felt a great disturbance in the force. 

Edited March 20, 2018 by tennisgurl

[Camera One]

ABC is premiering a new show starring Zach Braff as a guy starting a podcast.  Is there some crossover potential with Henry going on the show to do an episode of "H-Town"?

[Camera One]

I watched a random episode of "Charmed" since some channel was on free preview (it was the Season 7 finale).  I had forgotten the last show I watched with someone named Gideon was "Charmed".  Complete with a grown-up son from the future running someone through with Excalibur.  "Once" really is an amalgam of previous ideas.  I forgot how much I liked Future Chris.  I've been a fan of him since he played Joe Hardy in The Hardy Boys.  "Charmed" was campy but at least there was sense of fun with actual emotion, and that was seven seasons in, too.

Edited March 23, 2018 by Camera One

[tennisgurl]

7 minutes ago, Camera One said:

I forgot how much I liked the son from the future Chris.

I loved Chris, his season was by far my favorite. Plus, he was ridiculously easy on the eyes :)

The SyFy show The Magicians decided to jump into the alternate universe/multiple timelines hole last night (well, they already did awhile ago, but it was only quickly that time) with characters going to another universe and meeting other versions of their friends (Wish Verse style) and...it was actually really good. Like, they actually used the concept well, allowing some old characters to come back for a bit of fun, learn more about the dynamics between Our Heroes, and it lets some of the actors play different versions of themselves. It was kind of what I think Wish Verse was supposed to be at first, a fun thought experiment to see What Could Have Been, and not the absolute mess that it turned out to be. 

The Magicians is actually having an amazing season, and I would highly recommend it to any Once fan, at least a Once fan that is a little older, as its can get quite profane and violent at times. Its basically "what if Harry Potter was a depressed American grad student and stumbled upon a Narnia filled with imagery less Christ like and more phallic?" and thats kind of the show. But still with character arcs and lots of emotional stuff and all. It also plays with fantasy tropes and genres in the way that Once used to dabble in, before getting bored. The show itself is very Urban Fantasy (often playing with what is, to me, the quintessential urban fantasy question of How do magical creatures and people get along in a modern world?), but, without getting into spoilers, it takes some interesting turns in exploring a more standard "Medieval Magical Fantasy World" from the perspective of modern people. Kind of like Emma in the EF, but for longer, and doing more than just wandering about. The first season had some flaws, but it really gets better and better as it goes. 

[Camera One]

10 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

The Magicians is actually having an amazing season, and I would highly recommend it to any Once fan, at least a Once fan that is a little older, as its can get quite profane and violent at times. 

I actually just borrowed Season 1 on DVD from the library.  I was debating whether to watch it or not, since the show hasn't ended yet, and I wasn't sure if I wanted to risk catching up and then having no way of watching it (since I don't have SyFy channel).

I was going to give it a try tonight while cleaning my office, but I just started watching "Pinocchio".

The goldfish's name is Cleo.  Now we know the deeper meaning of Emma's mentor!

[tennisgurl]

6 minutes ago, Camera One said:

I actually just borrowed Season 1 on DVD from the library.  I was debating whether to watch it or not, since the show hasn't ended yet, and I wasn't sure if I wanted to risk catching up and then having no way of watching it (since I don't have SyFy channel).

 

I would say give it a try! Its first two seasons are on Netflix, and its wrapping up its third season now, and it was just renewed for its fourth! So there will be some time to play catch up! A lot of the things that I complain about in Once, like its wonky character work, lack of creativity, and crappy world building, are all done a million times better there. Most of the characters start out as rather stick archetypes, but they evolve in ways that make sense and go beyond those archetypes, and the universe they create and how magic works is all really well explained, without feeling overly techical. Plus, its just super fun, and enjoyable to watch. 

[Camera One]

2 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

I would say give it a try! Its first two seasons are on Netflix

I don't have Netflix.  It was by chance I saw the DVDs on the library shelf, and the entire Season 1 was there (pretty unusual).

I lost patience with watching "Pinocchio", so I watched the first two episodes of "The Magician".  I like it so far.  There are a few gross-out moments (I'm not a fan of violence and I hate gore) and the casual swearing is unnecessary, but I like the main guy and the supporting cast.  The first episode was more fun (until the end... not a big fan of Buffy-like monsters).  The second one was more, I didn't know who to trust.  They've built a really interesting fantasy world... I like the Narnia-esque books that he's obsessed with.  The whole show looks a little under-budget so the visuals aren't as pretty as on "Once".  Yet another show shot in Vancouver, eh?  Kinda took me out of it when the magical school was basically where I used to have classes, LOL.  

Edited March 23, 2018 by Camera One

[tennisgurl]

Glad you liked it @Camera One I hope you continue enjoying! I would love to see hear some of your reactions :) And I think the show gets a bit of a budget bump, because the later seasons have significantly better special effects. I mean, still TV effects where everything is clearly shot in Canada, but still, better! Or maybe they just get better at hiding the budget! 

[superloislane]

10 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

I loved Chris, his season was by far my favorite. Plus, he was ridiculously easy on the eyes :)

I've been doing a big rewatch of Charmed and I'm finally up to season 6 - ah Chris. I loved that super attractive man and his story was my favourite

[Shanna Marie]

22 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

The SyFy show The Magicians decided to jump into the alternate universe/multiple timelines hole last night (well, they already did awhile ago, but it was only quickly that time) with characters going to another universe and meeting other versions of their friends (Wish Verse style) and...it was actually really good. Like, they actually used the concept well, allowing some old characters to come back for a bit of fun, learn more about the dynamics between Our Heroes, and it lets some of the actors play different versions of themselves. It was kind of what I think Wish Verse was supposed to be at first, a fun thought experiment to see What Could Have Been, and not the absolute mess that it turned out to be. 

Yeah, I was impressed by the way they made the alternate universe/timeline thing work. I guess it helps that they didn't drastically change how it was supposed to work in midstream. And these are timelines that have apparently been parallel all along, not just created recently, so they don't have backstories that somehow intersect with other worlds before they were created. I guess we don't care as much about the AU versions dying as we do about "our" versions, but they're treated like real people, and we'd consider anyone who killed them to be a murderer. Either they planned ahead how they were going to use the other timelines, or they stuck to the parameters of what they previously established.

[Guest]

21 hours ago, Camera One said:

I don't have Netflix.  It was by chance I saw the DVDs on the library shelf, and the entire Season 1 was there (pretty unusual).

I lost patience with watching "Pinocchio", so I watched the first two episodes of "The Magician".  I like it so far.  There are a few gross-out moments (I'm not a fan of violence and I hate gore) and the casual swearing is unnecessary, but I like the main guy and the supporting cast.  The first episode was more fun (until the end... not a big fan of Buffy-like monsters).  The second one was more, I didn't know who to trust.  They've built a really interesting fantasy world... I like the Narnia-esque books that he's obsessed with.  The whole show looks a little under-budget so the visuals aren't as pretty as on "Once".  Yet another show shot in Vancouver, eh?  Kinda took me out of it when the magical school was basically where I used to have classes, LOL.  

Glad you are liking it so far.  I really enjoy the Magicians.  I think its one of the best shows on TV right now.  Which pains me because I swore I'd never get invested in another show on SyFy.

The one thing I'd say is that S2, S3 are way better than S1.  I got frustrated with the tone of S1 and gave up on the show.  I don't think I even watched all of S1 until after I happened to catch a few episodes of S2 and got hooked.  They put in a shot of humor and the rest is spoilers that really made the show fun to watch.  Some of S1 is so lacking in fun that I almost recommend watching S2, gaining an appreciation of the show and characters and then going back to S1 as a prequel. Positive vibes offsetting a lot of the dreary stuff in S1.

The Magicians really is a similar premise to OUAT but it unfolded completely opposite to OUAT. It got better as it went along.  They switch up the combinations of characters and frankly all of the combinations are good.  There are characters that I loathed and sometimes I'm watching I do a double take and try to figure out how they managed to redeem them in my eyes without me noticing.  Its really rather impressively thought out.  I don't know if they have a plan or if they are keeping note of details and explaining them in a clever way or exploring them further later on..

[Camera One]

I re-read "A Wrinkle in Time" and re-watched the 2003 TV miniseries which ABC delayed airing for several years (which they finally did, except heavily edited).

The first 2/3 of the movie they did seem to keep most of what was in the book.  Even though the characters were saying lines from the book, it felt like the actors were just going through the motions.  The acting was really bland, so the characters, especially Charles Wallace lost their spark and likability.  I guess it could have been worse.  I was trying not to let the really bad special effects affect my feeling about the movie, but it was impossible.  Back in 2003, the CGI was very distracting and some of the computer renderings such as Mrs. Whatsit as a centaur-like creature was scary, or really weird (like the Aunt Beast parts).  The major things they did change from the book were bad choices, like the reason why Charles Wallace merged with It, or the gift-giving scene (the line with Meg and her flaws given to her father, for some reason). 

I was reading an old interview with Madeleine L'Engle and her response was amusing.  

NEWSWEEK: So you've seen the movie?
Madeleine L'Engle: I've glimpsed it.

And did it meet expectations?
Oh, yes. I expected it to be bad, and it is.

I am considering watching the new movie for comparison.  

Thankfully, I own the "A Wrinkle in Time" book since all the copies in the library were signed out.  I did manage to book the next book "A Wind in the Door".  I would like to see this one adapted, so I hope the current movie is making a profit.  If not, who knows when the next adaptation will be.

Edited March 28, 2018 by Camera One

[Camera One]

I was watching the promo to the new ABC drama "The Crossing" and one of the screens proclaim "From the Network that Brought You Lost".  So now it's not even "from the producers of Lost" or "from the writers of Lost", just from the network of Lost aka ABC.  

They should have hired A&E to helm this show and it could be a spinoff of "Once".  Refugees wash up from the Future Enchanted Forest.  Among them... Regina, Rumple, Whook and Adult Henry.  

In other news, Netflix has ordered a show based on books telling the story of King Arthur from the perspective of the Lady of the Lake:

Here's how Netflix describes the companion TV series: "A reimagining of the Arthurian legend, told through the eyes of Nimue, a teenage heroine with a mysterious gift who is destined to become the powerful (and tragic) Lady of the Lake. 

There's no way this will match the epic story that A&E told about Nimue and epic adventure about Lancelot and the Lady of the Lake.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

This is going to paint Arthur as a villain, isn’t it?

[daxx]

1 hour ago, Rumsy4 said:

This is going to paint Arthur as a villain, isn’t it?

Probably, that is the trend these days isn’t it?

[KingOfHearts]

Watched a rather negative review of 2017's "Beauty and the Beast". While I don't want to dog that movie any more than I already have, some good points were made. One of the issues with that remake was that while it hit all the beats the audience was looking for, much of the natural emotion and pacing was lost along the way. Rather than providing a flowing narrative with relatable characters, the writers focused more on checking off boxes with as much iconography as possible. I don't think the film was super terrible or anything, but it does share that particular problem with OUAT. A lot of it probably falls on the directing. Moments move too fast or too much time is spent on things no one cares about. In the simplest terms, it's like going from A to B to C with nothing in between, or taking a detour to D between B and C.

[Camera One]

10 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

One of the issues with that remake was that while it hit all the beats the audience was looking for, much of the natural emotion and pacing was lost along the way. Rather than providing a flowing narrative with relatable characters, the writers focused more on checking off boxes 

The movie was alright, and while I'm glad it was respectful to the original, I couldn't see the value of replicating what we've already seen.  I feel that the movie could have benefited from showing more that we didn't know.  The stuff about Belle's mom and the illness was too short and glossed over.  

Quote

 I don't think the film was super terrible or anything, but it does share that particular problem with OUAT. 

I think OUAT takes iconography without any intention of being respectful to the original.  They take iconography to manipulate the audience, like having Rumbelle wearing the iconic costumes, when they are nothing like Belle and the Beast from the animated movie. 

The Beauty and the Beast movie did use the iconography, but in the same spirit as the original, which I think was the biggest difference.  However, in doing so, some of the emotion and charm of the original was left out. 

I also felt that a bit with the Cinderella adaptation.  It wasn't terrible either, but there was a blandness to it and characters like Lady Tremaine and the Fairy Godmother really paled.  I actually found the Prince in the animated movie more interesting even though he's a cartoon and was hardly in the movie.

For me, the fun of seeing live-action is more seeing the songs performed live action, except Emma Watson wasn't a great singer and Cinderella didn't even have songs.  So I have tempered expectations with the live action Aladdin, Lion King and Mulan. 

Though I would still take a dull live action copy to a travesty like Maleficent.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

10 minutes ago, Camera One said:

The movie was alright, and while I'm glad it was respectful to the original, I couldn't see the value of replicating what we've already seen.  I feel that the movie could have benefited from showing more that we didn't know.  The stuff about Belle's mom and the illness was too short and glossed over.  

My biggest problem with the movie was that it made so many unnecessary changes to the plot that complicated things more than added depth. I had the same issues with The Jungle Book.

Quote

Though I would still take a dull live action copy to a travesty like Maleficent.

I still hate this movie. It's much closer to OUAT than any of the other live-action remakes so far.

Edited March 29, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[Mabinogia]

1 hour ago, KingOfHearts said:

It's much closer to OUAT than any of the other live-action remakes so far.

In that it basically showed the characters in name only? Because I was so excited to get a Maleficent movie, she is my favorite Disney villain, but that movie was HORRIBLE! That wasn't Maleficent, it was some other fairy with the same name. Much like pretty much every character in Once only has the minimal connection to the original version.

Yeah, I think I'd rather the live action version of a Disney Classic to what they did with Maleficent. But the sad fact it, I really like the idea of telling more of the story from a different angle/pov, they just forked it up royally.

[tennisgurl]

See, I thought some of the added stuff, like the backstory as to why Belle and Maurice were living in a poor provincial town instead of someplace cool like Paris where book worms or inventors would have more opportunities, Belle and the Beast bonding over books, and the spell explaining why no one seemed to remember that this whole castle and everyone there existed, worked pretty well. It wasn't that I thought the original needed them, but I thought the expanded stuff added some more color to the story, without being a distraction. My thoughts on Cinderella, Jungle Book, and Beauty and the Beast is that they're good movies, but are pretty derivative. We have the cartoons, so why do we need these? I like them, and think they're generally well acted and written and shot, and it really is cool to see these characters in live action and on the big screen, but I wish Disney would focus more on creating new stories, instead of just redoing the old ones that were already good. 

On the other hand, I would take those over crap like Maleficent any day. In the classic Once formula, it makes the villain out to be an innocent victim of those mean evil heroes, and manages to ruin everyone, by making the once badass villain a sad woobie instead of a force to be reckoned with, and makes the heroes look like losers or monsters to prop up the villain. Maleficent actually seemed to have disdain for the original story, while at least the other movies "got" the stories and why people liked them. If Disney wants to keep this live action remake stuff up, I wish they could find a balance. Tell the story from a new angel, but in a way thats respectful to the original, and isnt just terrible fanfic that somehow got a million dollar budget.

[Camera One]

It's interesting because I'm usually such a purist, but I guess those changes left such a small impact that I almost wanted more changes.  For me, the additions did not enhance the characters or the plot.  For example, the enchantress reveal.  Her motives were even less comprehensible than the animated movie.  It doesn't explain why she was punishing everyone in the village.  Maybe Belle's mother stuff didn't affect me that much because I didn't really engage with the Emma Watson Belle.  I mean, I didn't dislike the character or anything but she was just sort of there.  And that hindered the relationship with her father, who didn't get much more screentime, which negated the impact of the plague reveal.  There was no meat to the backstory of the Beast that gave me any more sympathy for the character nor did it add to the complexity.  The fact that Gaston was an ex-soldier seemed like a throwaway.  For me, if an adaptation makes changes, it has to be for a reason and it has to have an impact, and none of the changes were that way in this movie.

Quote

But the sad fact it, I really like the idea of telling more of the story from a different angle/pov, they just forked it up royally.

I like seeing things from a different angle, but it seems like the most popular approach is to tell the story from the villain's POV, making them misunderstood.  I've grown to really hate that.  

[Camera One]

2 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

My thoughts on Cinderella, Jungle Book, and Beauty and the Beast is that they're good movies, but are pretty derivative. We have the cartoons, so why do we need these? I like them, and think they're generally well acted and written and shot, and it really is cool to see these characters in live action and on the big screen, but I wish Disney would focus more on creating new stories, instead of just redoing the old ones that were already good. 

If Disney wants to keep this live action remake stuff up, I wish they could find a balance. Tell the story from a new angel, but in a way thats respectful to the original, and isnt just terrible fanfic that somehow got a million dollar budget.

That reminds me of an article I skimmed, about the book trilogy that "The Magicians" is based on.  I didn't fully read the article because I don't like spoilers and I've only watched Season 1 and haven't read the books.  But the gist of the article (called "Why the Magicians Trilogy will Never be a Fantasy Classic"), was that the author just took elements from existing stories like Narnia or Harry Potter, and wrote a story (albeit a good story) that "basically amounts to a redrawing of Narnia in crazy colors".

As much as I enjoyed Season 1 of "The Magicians", what they did with Narnia was quite derivative.  What drew me to the series was the premise of an ordinary guy going into the storybooks that he loved as a child.  But basically, the author just added violence and sex to it and twisted what was magical into something sick and twisted and deadly.  How much creativity does that really require?  And that's what we constantly get with these new adaptations... Oz as a desolate wasteland, for example, crops up over and over... that's one of the reasons I wasn't very impressed with the "Wicked" book by Gregory Maguire.

That's very much what A&E were doing with fairy tales and Disney movies, except on a much more simplistic level.  Snow White commits adultery, Rapunzel grows up to be a fairy murderer, Aurora sells out her friends, Belle defends her murdering husband, Beowulf is a fraud, and Cinderella plots murder, etc.  What's the line between adding complexity to a character and completely twisting them beyond what they were in the first place?

Edited March 29, 2018 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

4 minutes ago, Camera One said:

But the gist of the article (called "Why the Magicians Trilogy will Never be a Fantasy Classic"), was that the author just took elements from existing stories like Narnia or Harry Potter, and wrote a story that "basically amounts to a redrawing of Narnia in crazy colors".

As much as I enjoyed Season 1 of "The Magicians", what they did with Narnia was quite derivative.  What drew me to the series was the premise of an ordinary guy going into the storybooks that he loved as a child.  But basically, the author just added violence and sex to it and twisted what was magical into something sick and twisted and deadly.  How much creativity does that really require? 

That was my problem with the books. I read the first book long before the TV series, and I was very unimpressed. I was surprised to see how many fantasy readers liked it because I thought it was a rather derivative mash-up of Harry Potter and Narnia, with added sex, drugs, and violence. I even got the impression that he wasn't actually familiar with the Narnia books, just knew about them in a general pop culture sort of way, because the way he was showing Fillory came across as though he was "fixing" things about Narnia that weren't actually true of the Narnia books. And I got really irked that he was using Narnia with the serial numbers barely filed off, but then portraying the author as a pedophile, so it was like he ripped off C.S. Lewis and then slandered him.

I think the TV show has done a better job of creating something unique, and the second and third books do get a lot better and more imaginative. Still, one of them (and now I can't remember which) is basically the plot of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. I think a lot of the success of the series (both TV and book) is due to the fact that it plays into a couple of common fantasies for fantasy fans -- getting to go to a Harry Potter-like school and finding out that Narnia is real.

[tennisgurl]

41 minutes ago, Camera One said:

hat reminds me of an article I skimmed, about the book trilogy that "The Magicians" is based on.  I didn't fully read the article because I don't like spoilers and I've only watched Season 1 and haven't read the books.  But the gist of the article (called "Why the Magicians Trilogy will Never be a Fantasy Classic"), was that the author just took elements from existing stories like Narnia or Harry Potter, and wrote a story (albeit a good story) that "basically amounts to a redrawing of Narnia in crazy colors".

I think thats why the show has gotten so much better since season 1. I enjoyed season 1, but I also thought it was rather derivation of other fantasy series and tropes, and seemed to have a certain amount of disdain for the tropes it was using and messing with. On the other hand, I think starting in season 2, it started to become more of its own thing, and ditched the sort of "Harry Potter/Narnia but with sex and drugs" stuff, and started to get more creative in its plots, or at least used the tropes in a more interesting and loving way, instead of just adding sex and swearing to more seemingly family friendly content. I haven't read the books, so I cant really speak for them, but I have heard similar complaints about them before. The show is having an awesome 3rd season, and I think its the most creatively fulfilling yet. 

Even with the Narnia stuff, its become less "oh my God, its a fantasy world thats actually got a serious dark side!" and more "Alright, you are the leader of a fantasy world. How do you handle that? What are your tax laws and stuff? What does this mean for your personal life?" and I find that to be a much more unique twist on Narnia than just adding darker elements and PG-13 stuff. Plus, its had WAY more fun with modern people in a fantasy medieval world and fantasy medieval world people in the modern world stuff than this show ever did. I mean, seriously, Once. Emma in the EF? Hook in modern Maine? That shit was gift wrapped!!! 

[Guest]

Agents of Shield, providing belated quotes to snark on Regina as Ursala.

"You filthy calamari Mata Hari"

[Writing Wrongs]

On 3/29/2018 at 12:24 AM, Camera One said:

So now it's not even "from the producers of Lost" or "from the writers of Lost", just from the network of Lost aka ABC.  

We must be twins. I said the exact same thing when I saw that. LOL

[Writing Wrongs]

Has anyone watched the Mythica movie series? I'm in the middle of a marathon. They are all on Amazon Prime, so I thought I'd give them a try. They are a bit low rent, but not too bad. They have all the required elements: magic, elves, orcs, ogres, dwarves, etc.

[KingOfHearts]

I realized just how meta The Good Place is, especially in S2. (Spoiler-tagging it just to be safe.)

Spoiler

With all the resets, it really alluded to all the story-element combinations we see throughout media. After watching so many shows or movies, you begin to pick up patterns and recognize that the same essential formulas are followed, just with changes to the names or faces. With OUAT, there's a "reset" in every arc with the characters forgetting everything that happened in the previous one. You could go through hundreds of iterations of the same plot, just swapping the identities of each role and adjusting minor details. (Which, let's face it, is exactly what A&E do.) Though, The Good Place is painfully aware of this and turns it on its head. At the beginning of S2, you believe that each episode will be about a different reset. But by about the third episode, the concept gets thrown out entirely. A&E tried in S6 of OUAT to "change things up", but it failed miserably because they didn't really replace their formula with anything. It was a bunch of nothing. No structure.

Typically in the second season of a show, a crop of new characters get introduced and the world gets expanded. What's interesting about The Good Place is there are very new characters in its second season, and the focus remains on the original six. There's an entire episode about them getting drunk and just talking, and it's still entertaining because they're so likeable. Michael is a demon who tortures people and I still find him endearing.

Edited April 1, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[Mabinogia]

If it had been done better, this last season of OUAT could have been a very clever, laughing at themselves meta moment. It is almost exactly season one but with different characters. Henry/Lucy is a child in search of their parent Emma/Henry, who thinks they are ordinary but come from a fairytale family. An evil witch, Regina/Drusilla, who was mistreated by her mom Cora/Tremaine, casts a curse to doom people to a land without magic Storybrooke/Hyperion Heights. A true loves kiss Snowing/Henrella will break the spell. Each witch even has a child that they feel is the cause of all their issues. It's seriously season one all over and it could have been played very tongue in cheek and might have worked. That is what makes The Good Place work, well, that, an amazing cast, the greatest writing team in the history of the world (just look at the list of food pun restaurant names and tell me these people are creative geniuses!) and a unique ability to constantly shake things up without screwing with the heart of the show. 

I think that's really why TGP works. They know that the core four are the heart of the show. That they can get away with incredibly amazing twists and ridiculously over the top visuals and jokes that are groan worthy but actually work, because the four main characters are the beating heart that keeps the show alive. 

I think Once lost sight of the fact that Snowing was that beating heart. That the Charming Clan where the heart and soul of not just Storybrooke, or the Enchanted Forest, but the show. Without it's heart, OUAT is just a husk of what it could have been. And honestly, even if A&E thought Regina was the heart of the show, what have they had her do this season? I keep forgetting she's even there, and I constantly have to remind myself that she is actually Regina because I see no resemblance at all to the Evil Queen I once loved. 

Once seems to have lost the whimsy that made it unique. Of course, it has also lasted seven seasons so maybe I just don't understand what viewers want. That would explain why pretty much every show I love lasts, at best, three seasons. Usually I'm lucky to get a season 2. I am not at one with the people. lol

[KingOfHearts]

41 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

I think Once lost sight of the fact that Snowing was that beating heart. That the Charming Clan where the heart and soul of not just Storybrooke, or the Enchanted Forest, but the show. Without it's heart, OUAT is just a husk of what it could have been. And honestly, even if A&E thought Regina was the heart of the show, what have they had her do this season? I keep forgetting she's even there, and I constantly have to remind myself that she is actually Regina because I see no resemblance at all to the Evil Queen I once loved. 

A&E tend to bank everything on their "creative" ingenuity with constant new content. Every season there's new settings, characters, etc. But even if all their ideas were the best ones ever concocted, it wouldn't work without the heart. You can't jump from place to place without some kind of grounding. You said it very eloquently, but the reason The Good Place can get away with all its wacky high jinks is because it never loses its humanity. To put it more tangible terms, if OUAT wanted to spend an arc in Oz with all its zany characters, it wouldn't be jarring if you brought the main cast and focused on their reactions to it. Neverland and Underbrooke did this pretty well. Camelot, imo, took too many detours with plots that went nowhere about characters we wouldn't see again. Ironically, in the Storybrooke arcs, the main characters got even less development.

Edited April 1, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

Is anyone going to try "The Crossing"?   You know, "From the network that brought you Lost"?  

I might PVR it but it seems like that type of show that will be cancelled and then there's no payoff.  It also seems really generic.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

21 minutes ago, Camera One said:

Is anyone going to try "The Crossing"?   You know, "From the network that brought you Lost"?  

I don't think so. I only get ABC via DirecTV Now, and I'm planning to drop that in May, so I don't want to get involved with anything else on that network. Maybe if I hear really good things I'll stream it, but I'm mostly trying to reduce my TV viewing, and I've discovered the wealth of really cool stuff on Amazon.

[daxx]

40 minutes ago, Camera One said:

Is anyone going to try "The Crossing"?   You know, "From the network that brought you Lost"?  

I might PVR it but it seems like that type of show that will be cancelled and then there's no payoff.  It also seems really generic.

I’ll record it. Why not, time travel and Georgina Haig.

[Camera One]

Just now, daxx said:

I’ll record it. Why not, time travel and Georgina Haig.

I didn't know she was in it.  Okay, that makes me a little more likely to watch it now. 

I guess I'm a little tired of dystopian shows.  Not that "Once" succeeds but it provides a little bit of HOPE.  I want to get immersed in a fantasy world where everyone isn't dying all the time.

[andromeda331]

Nope, I gave them two chances LOST and ONCE they blew both. No more. I have no interest anymore in LOST or LOST type shows, shows from the writers, showrunners, all of it.