OUAT vs. Other Fairy Tales: Compare & Contrast

[KingOfHearts]

(Avengers: Infinity War spoilers.)

Spoiler

Thanos sacrificing Gamora immediately made me think of Regina killing her father in order to cast the Dark Curse. I wouldn't say it's a bad thing, but it didn't shock me. When Gamora thought her father didn't love anyone, I thought, "If Pan could kill the subordinate he tolerated, I'm sure Thanos' options are wide open!"

[Spartan Girl]

3 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

(Avengers: Infinity War spoilers.)

  Reveal hidden contents

Thanos sacrificing Gamora immediately made me think of Regina killing her father in order to cast the Dark Curse. I wouldn't say it's a bad thing, but it didn't shock me. When Gamora thought her father didn't love anyone, I thought, "If Pan could kill the subordinate he tolerated, I'm sure Thanos' options are wide open!"

Damned if that wasn't the exact same thing I thought of at that moment too. Are some of the OUAT writers at Marvel?! Code red!

[KingOfHearts]

8 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

Damned if that wasn't the exact same thing I thought of at that moment too. Are some of the OUAT writers at Marvel?! Code red!

They seem to be writing for Star Wars too if that Kylo and Han Solo reunion was any indication.

I think OUAT traumatized me and made me forever paranoid. 

Edited April 29, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

9 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

I think OUAT traumatized me and made me forever paranoid. 

A&E has changed all our lives.

[Shanna Marie]

Speaking of Avengers, there was this quote in our local newspaper's review that made me think about some of the discussions we've had about OUAT. I don't think it's particularly spoilery, but I haven't seen the movie (I'm so far behind on MCU movies that I suspect it would make zero sense to me).

Quote

This is helped by the smart pairing of characters at every turn. Take Iron Man and Doctor Strange, who are both brilliant, science-minded leaders who (of course) are going to clash. Likewise, the more lighthearted Thor and Star-Lord are able to swap stories about their deep familial issues while not getting too heavy about it. These meetings are why audiences go to the Avengers movies in the first place, and the key moments don't disappoint.

Bolding mine. See, some people actually recognize that the fun part of any kind of mash-up is seeing the fun character combinations and interactions.

[KingOfHearts]

22 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

I don't think it's particularly spoilery

It's only spoilery if want to know nothing about the movie, which is a bit extreme.

22 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

but I haven't seen the movie (I'm so far behind on MCU movies that I suspect it would make zero sense to me)

Unlike the original Avengers movie, which had mass appeal, A:IW isn't something you can just jump into. There's a crazy amount of references to the other films and it's only satisfying if you've been keeping up with the MCU. imo, it doesn't hold up as its own movie. It's meant to service the series at large, which it does exponentially. I initially didn't like it, but the more I thought about the grand scheme of things, the more it made sense. It's very good setup for the future of the MCU, and it's great if you judge it in those terms.

22 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

Bolding mine. See, some people actually recognize that the fun part of any kind of mash-up is seeing the fun character combinations and interactions.

This was one of my favorite aspects of the movie. The writers really went nuts with crazy character matchups. It's fun because while we the audience can see everything, the characters are coming from different storylines and backgrounds. The Guardians of the Galaxy haven't been to earth in years or not at all, yet they speak to people who were just there and there's an immediate culture clash. It's not harped on or anything, but there's enough to let audiences fill in the blanks.

I think it's amazing that the writers were able to balance 20 characters without making it feel over-saturated. A&E can't handle even half that many, and they have a lot more screen time to budget with. (Instead of quarantining characters off into their own centrics, why not pair them with other characters to kill two or more birds with one stone? Letting two characters develop at once is super innovative, I know.)

Edited April 29, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[Trini]

4 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

Unlike the original Avengers movie, which had mass appeal, A:IW isn't something you can just jump into. There's a crazy amount of references to the other films and it's only satisfying if you've been keeping up with the MCU. imo, it doesn't hold up as its own movie. It's meant to service the series at large, which it does exponentially. I initially didn't like it, but the more I thought about the grand scheme of things, the more it made sense. It's very good setup for the future of the MCU, and it's great if you judge it in those terms.

Ehhh. I know I'll eventually see Infinity Wars, but I really don't want to have to see ALL the movies to 'get it'. There are only so many of the characters I'm interested/invested in; and some of the movies I'm not interested in at all.

[KingOfHearts]

7 hours ago, Trini said:

Ehhh. I know I'll eventually see Infinity Wars, but I really don't want to have to see ALL the movies to 'get it'. There are only so many of the characters I'm interested/invested in; and some of the movies I'm not interested in at all.

I'm not saying you have to see all of them. I haven't. But you should be somewhat familiar with the universe and what's been going on. It's payoff for a plot that's been setup for a long time throughout many of them.

[daxx]

I’d say the bare minimum is the origin movies, just the first of these, Iron Man, Cap America, Thor, Guardians of the Galaxy, Dr Strange, Black Panther, the Avengers, Age of Ultron and Civil War. 

Did I miss any crucial ones? 

[Rumsy4]

I've only seen the first two Iron Man movies and a couple of the Netflix tie-in mini-series (which are too tangential to the plot of the movies). I feel like I can never catch up at this point.

Edited April 29, 2018 by Rumsy4

[KingOfHearts]

33 minutes ago, daxx said:

I’d say the bare minimum is the origin movies, just the first of these, Iron Man, Cap America, Thor, Guardians of the Galaxy, Dr Strange, Black Panther, the Avengers, Age of Ultron and Civil War. 

Did I miss any crucial ones? 

I haven't seen Black Panther or Age of Ultron, but I could fill in the blanks. I'd probably add Thor 3, if you get my drift, @daxx.

Quote

I've only seen the first two Iron Man movies and a couple of the Netflix tie-in mini-series (which are too tangential to the plot of the movies). I feel like I can never catch up at this point.

You can jump right into it like new viewers can into S7 of OUAT. ;)

Edited April 29, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

2 hours ago, Rumsy4 said:

I've only seen the first two Iron Man movies and a couple of the Netflix tie-in mini-series (which are too tangential to the plot of the movies). I feel like I can never catch up at this point.

That's almost the same as me minus the Netflix stuff.  I only watched the first two Iron Man movies.  I think I watched the third one too but it was really bad.  Or maybe the second one was really bad.  I'm not a huge comic book fan so I don't know the characters at all.   Action movies usually bore me and I can't remember anything after.  

[Camera One]

I don't watch "Fear the Walking Dead" but I was reading an interview with Andrew Chambliss and Ian Goldberg, who used to write for "Once" and now showrun that other show.

Quote

Chambliss: I would say the one thing we were very conscious of as we were telling these stories over two different timelines was that people would be asking questions about who's there, and who's not there. We wanted to write the stories and have them unfold in such ways that there are many twists and turns along the journey. Keep watching, because there's plenty of flashback story to tell and plenty of present day story left to tell. There's an interesting chemistry between the two. 

Goldberg: Telling stories across time is really about telling one big emotional story. That's where we started this season: a story of hopelessness building toward hope. That's where everything comes from for us. The flashback story provides a different emotional context for what we're seeing in the present day. We're really excited to see how people react to getting to see two very different sides of these characters, and asking the questions of what happened that made everyone change so drastically? 

It's funny how these Writers seem to be using the same formula as "Once".  The "Who's there, Who's not" and "What happened that made everyone change" with a time jump and then flashbacks to fill in the gaps is very 3B and 5A.  Sometimes, this type of format really annoys me.  

[Guest]

20 hours ago, Camera One said:

I don't watch "Fear the Walking Dead" but I was reading an interview with Andrew Chambliss and Ian Goldberg, who used to write for "Once" and now showrun that other show.

It's funny how these Writers seem to be using the same formula as "Once".  The "Who's there, Who's not" and "What happened that made everyone change" with a time jump and then flashbacks to fill in the gaps is very 3B and 5A.  Sometimes, this type of format really annoys me.  

I can't think of a time where this type of format didn't ultimately annoy me.  I just find that it takes a very strong and consistent showrunner and writing team and that is very hard to find.  Inevitably those attempting this either don't have a firm plan on where they are going and think they can figure it out along the way or are so paranoid about the audience figuring it out that they give no clues or so many red herrings and false clues that the whole thing becomes a disappointing mess. 

One thing I have noticed lately is that a lot of shows are doing the hard reset to a different premise every thirteen episodes.  I think that OUAT was out front in doing that and its too bad that they didn't have the chops to really pull it off.  If you think about it, shows like the Magicians, The Good Place and Legion are all turning their shows on their heads every season and exploring a new environment or a new premise.  The thing they do that OUAT failed to do is recognize that the characters need to be the bridge that holds the arcs together (character is most important) and they really have fun exploring their new playground.

[InsertWordHere]

On 4/28/2018 at 9:44 PM, Spartan Girl said:

Damned if that wasn't the exact same thing I thought of at that moment too. Are some of the OUAT writers at Marvel?! Code red!

I also thought the same.

Spoiler

Only I suspect this action will have more consequences for Thanos than it did for Regina and I can at least say that Thanos believes his sacrifice was for the greater good.  

[KingOfHearts]

I've noticed that, especially in fantasy TV shows, things get more bullshit-y as they go along. Somewhere along the way, basic logic gets thrown out the window in favor of the writers' ingenuous high concepts or philosophy. What started out grounded in some form of reality goes off rails into a "whatever we want" romp. This usually occurs in the final season(s) of a show. The cause of events devolves from logical order to "because magic/The Island/deity/lazy writers". It comes from the story's need to one-up itself by raising the scale impossibly high, sometimes beyond the scope of the writers' ability. That's when elements like time travel, religion, prophecies, resurrection, alternate realities, and overpowered characters come into play in a show that might not have been about those things from the start. It takes a lot of skill to pull those off without creating gaping plot holes or losing sight of what made the premise originally work. 

OUAT is guilty of this, but its problems started a lot sooner than other shows. The writers began breaking their own rules constantly to the point that there were no consequences any more.

(Just FYI, I'm not talking about Avengers: Infinity War, though I believe the MCU is probably going to have these issues later down the line if not in smaller amounts already.)

Edited May 1, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[jhlipton]

8 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

hat's when elements like time travel [1], religion, prophecies, resurrection [2], alternate realities, and overpowered characters [3] come into play in a show that might not have been about those things from the start

re Legends of Tomorrow:

[1] It's always been about time travel, but how "fluid" time is has ebbed and flowed from time to time {Have a plot point that depends on going back and changing time?  That time point is fluid.  Have a plot point that depends on no one being ale to go back and change time?  That time point is fixed.), but it mostly stays consistant

[2] The Death Stone made resurrection posssible, but it was very limited and not used much (more for one episode-only character), so that hasn't been a problem.

[3] This season ended with an over-powered villain beaten by an over-powered hero, but the foundation for both were laid throughout the season, so it wasn't a case of "Where did that come from???"  There was a bit of a problem both this season and last of the Legends facing a foe that could beat them at every turn, which got to be a bit much.  Fortunately, the writing and the acting was enough to keep the show going.

[tennisgurl]

Really, its amazing that the people behind the MCU have kept thing basically consistent throughout its several movies, TV shows, and spin offs. They sometimes miss little details, and they frequently add in new parts of the world (aliens! magic! dragons!) but its nothing that comes across as a retcon, its just expanding on what we already know, and the little details are the kinds of things you can just shake your head at and move on from easily. Its nothing that destroys previously established characters or totally screws up the established rules of the universe every five minutes. And they have managed to juggle TONS of characters with wildly different personalities, skills, powers, and backstories, from across the universe, practically from even more disparate genres than anyone in Once, while giving most of them satisfying character development as well. Meanwhile, A&E cant even handle less than a six people from the same story living in the same block. 

Edited May 2, 2018 by tennisgurl

[tennisgurl]

Also, if anyone wants to see Infinity War without seeing all the other movies, hit me up! I can give a quick rundown of characters and background on the MCU, without any spoilers :)

[jhlipton]

Who's who in what

:

[Souris]

The Washington Post has a great article for those who missed some or all of the MCU movies: Everything that’shappened leading up to‘Avengers: Infinity War’ (spoiler-free for Infinity War).

[KingOfHearts]

It would be less confusing to explain the MCU timeline leading up to Avengers: Infinity War than the OUAT timeline... just for S7.

[KingOfHearts]

Avengers: Infinity War spoilers, again.

Spoiler

A little food for thought. Most of the action and the attempts of the heroes are pointless. The battles the heroes fight do not change the outcome of things. Normally, I'd find that very disappointing. It happens on OUAT all the time. But there's a huge difference. In Infinity War, the pointlessness adds to the tragedy. No matter what the heroes did, they still failed. It adds to the gravity of the ending. If it were OUAT, some deus ex machina would run in at the last minute and save them all. That would be super cheap. But as it stands, I'm totally fine with the heroes sucking. It's not like they didn't try their hardest with some brilliant plans. Along the way, though, they made some mistakes that cost them their victory. (Starlord woke Thanos up for killing Gamora, for example.) Ultimately, Thanos was willing to give up everything to succeed and the heroes weren't. It feels good to see character choices impact the story instead of contrived stupidity or asspulls, even if the villain wins.

[Camera One]

I saw an image of Te Fiti from "Moana" and suddenly thought Mother Gothel.  Could that be a partial inspiration for A&E's version of the character?

This is from the entry on Te Fiti from the Moana Wiki:

Quote

After her heart had been stolen by the demigod Maui, she became Te Kā, a demon manifested of fire and magma.  A damaged and emotionless shell of her former self, Te Kā looks to slowly plunge the world into darkness and eradicate humanity

Sounds familiar?

Edited May 7, 2018 by Camera One

[Camera One]

New movie by the producer of "Shrek" called "Charming".  Trailer here.

It doesn't seem that interesting to me.  The three Princesses are just parodies.  The Prince learns not to be a womanizer?

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Camera One said:

New movie by the producer of "Shrek" called "Charming".  Trailer here.

It doesn't seem that interesting to me.  The three Princesses are just parodies.  The Prince learns not to be a womanizer?

But the villain is spreading Regina's purple smoke of magical dark curse across the land.

[Souris]

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

New movie by the producer of "Shrek" called "Charming".  Trailer here.

It doesn't seem that interesting to me.  The three Princesses are just parodies.  The Prince learns not to be a womanizer?

Wow, that looks ... not good.

[Writing Wrongs]

I was over on the Supernatural thread where they are dealing with their own AU storyline. Does this sound familiar?

Quote

Resurrected characters (some multiple times), copies of others from an alternate universe, a dozen faceless characters we're supposed to want to protect....What is even this show anymore ?

I sympathize.

[CCTC]

23 minutes ago, Writing Wrongs said:

Resurrected characters (some multiple times),

I think I stopped watching about the third time one of the brothers died and/or went to Hell at the season finale and came back the next season, but changed and with a secret.

[daxx]

14 hours ago, CCTC said:

I think I stopped watching about the third time one of the brothers died and/or went to Hell at the season finale and came back the next season, but changed and with a secret.

This time one of the brothers died and was resurrected in the same episode. Sigh...

[KingOfHearts]

40 minutes ago, daxx said:

This time one of the brothers died and was resurrected in the same episode. Sigh...

Sounds like OUAT.

[tennisgurl]

The Princess and the Frog is on, and it reminds me how much was lost when the show decided to get rid of the 1920s New Orleans setting. The era and setting are such big parts of the story, style, and music and its a big part of the movies charm. Its makes the story unique. Putting Tianas story in a kind of medieval, feudal New Orleans just misses the whole point, robs the story of what made it memorable, and really speaks to the shows fear of diverting even a tad bit from their usual setting. And Tiana being a princess is completely counter to her whole story, and seems to just exist because the show wants to have more princesses. Honestly, why do they even bother with these characters if they arent going to use any of the stuff people liked about them? 

[Camera One]

1 minute ago, tennisgurl said:

The Princess and the Frog is on, and it reminds me how much was lost when the show decided to get rid of the 1920s New Orleans setting. The era and setting are such big parts of the story, style, and music and its a big part of the movies charm. Its makes the story unique. Putting Tianas story in a kind of medieval, feudal New Orleans just misses the whole point, robs the story of what made it memorable, and really speaks to the shows fear of diverting even a tad bit from their usual setting. And Tiana being a princess is completely counter to her whole story, and seems to just exist because the show wants to have more princesses. Honestly, why do they even bother with these characters if they arent going to use any of the stuff people liked about them? 

Well, if they didn't mangle Princess and the Frog, we wouldn't have been able to make our 101 jokes about beignets.

Edited May 12, 2018 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

I just finished reading the first book in Robin Hobbs's Liveship trilogy, and part of it could almost have worked as an AU Hook origin story (it was published in 1998, so it has nothing to do with this show, and it's too thick for these idiots to have read it). The ships in this world are built of enchanted wood, except it actually matters to the story. The figureheads are alive, talk, use their arms and hands, etc., and the ships can mostly sail themselves, but they need to have a member of the family that built them onboard because there's a bond between the ship and the family. In one of the plot lines, the husband of the captain/owner's oldest daughter has to take over as captain when the captain gets sick, with the younger daughter as the designated family member. After the captain dies, the son-in-law schemes to take over, kicks the daughter off and brings his son on as the family member. But the boy was training to be a priest and isn't keen on being forced into this. Then when pirates take the ship, they have to keep him on board so the ship will work, and that's how the brainy boy with a conscience becomes a pirate with a special bond with his ship.

Then there's the pirate captain who takes the ship, who's a real jerk who makes Hook look like a choirboy, but he flirts so outrageously with the ship that she actually gets flustered. That sounds like something our Hook would do.

Did it ever actually matter to the story that the Jolly Roger was built of enchanted wood? They kept saying it, but it make any difference.

[Camera One]

I just read that "The Crossing" was cancelled.  I guess I can delete the whole series from my PVR.  I didn't even watch the first episode yet.  If it's going to end with minimal resolution, then I probably shouldn't bother getting invested.

I was also reading from the showrunner of "Lucifer" (which was cancelled) that it was ending on a giant cliffhanger.  At least we can be lucky we got such a great resolution to Season 7 of "Once" and a second try at a series finale, LOL.

Edited May 12, 2018 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

I don't get why networks cancel shows without given the showrunners enough time to wrap up storylines. It seems mean-spirited. Is it to keep the producers from shopping around for other networks? 

[Camera One]

4 minutes ago, Rumsy4 said:

I don't get why networks cancel shows without given the showrunners enough time to wrap up storylines. It seems mean-spirited. Is it to keep the producers from shopping around for other networks? 

Well, this is what the showrunner tweeted: “We created a season finale with a huge cliffhanger so that there was no way Fox could cancel us.  Instead, we’re going to frustrate the hell out of you fans. I’m so sorry for that.”

I wonder if that original Robin Hood might have made it to Season 7 if A&E had gotten him back.

Edited May 12, 2018 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

8 minutes ago, Camera One said:

“We created a season finale with a huge cliffhanger so that there was no way Fox could cancel us. .."

I saw that too. Seems like they overplayed their hand. 

9 minutes ago, Camera One said:

I wonder if that original Robin Hood might have made it to Season 7 if A&E had gotten him back.

I can't see Tom Ellis playing Regina's doormat to the same extent. Maybe he would have brought a different dynamic to Outlaw Queen.

[jhlipton]

On 5/12/2018 at 4:31 PM, Rumsy4 said:

I don't get why networks cancel shows without given the showrunners enough time to wrap up storylines. It seems mean-spirited. Is it to keep the producers from shopping around for other networks? 

It's the bubble shows that have this problem.  The networks need to see if (a) they're going to improve, (b) if any of the other shows are going to go up or down and (c) what pilots are coming up the pipe. If Gotham's ratings had completely tanked in the last few weeks, Lucifer might have been saved (and vice versa).  And if Fox had several pilots that were getting a lot of good buzz, they might have knocked off both shows.

Shows with monster ratings (like Empire or This Is Us) get renewed early, shows with awful ratings (like Valor) get cancelled just as early/

[Camera One]

I borrowed the "Wonder Woman" DVD, and I watched one hour of it last night before bed.  Sometimes I feel bad watching movies in parts, because that's so different from the movie-theatre experience, but sometimes I feel like they can't sustain my attention for that long. 

Anyway, I'm liking it so far, but as I was watching it, I was thinking "Wouldn't it be cool if Mother Gothel started off as Wonder Woman"?  There were a lot of parallels in their stories.  Their oasis of safety was intruded upon by humankind and family members died.  What if instead of becoming a hero, Wonder Woman became a murderous witch who traps Rapunzel in a Tower to maintain her innocence?   A&E has seriously damaged me.

I actually did not know Wonder Woman's origin story before this movie, so it's interesting it's basically a mash-up of Greek mythology and WWI and Captain Kirk. 

I'm enjoying the fish-out-of-water moments in this movie.  It's definitely better than most comic book movies I've watched, though I was sad when the men with guns were killing the Amazon women at the beginning, which is one of the reasons why I had to take a break.  I'll probably watch the rest later today.

Edited May 20, 2018 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

Wonder Woman is a such a good movie. It has an innocent feel even as it deals with heartbreaking realities of life and war. I love love love the ice cream scene. It's wonderful, indeed. 

[Camera One]

7 minutes ago, Rumsy4 said:

Wonder Woman is a such a good movie. It has an innocent feel even as it deals with heartbreaking realities of life and war. I love love love the ice cream scene. It's wonderful, indeed. 

I love the strong women like the Poison Lady.  I'm really looking forward to her redemption.

[Rumsy4]

8 minutes ago, Camera One said:

I love the strong women like the Poison Lady.  I'm really looking forward to her redemption.

Don't forget to watch the post-credits scene where Wonder Woman apologizes to her.

[InsertWordHere]

She was bold and audacious. 

[CCTC]

1 hour ago, Rumsy4 said:

Wonder Woman is a such a good movie. It has an innocent feel even as it deals with heartbreaking realities of life and war. I love love love the ice cream scene. It's wonderful, indeed. 

It really did have a lot of heart, the WWI setting gave it a unique feel, and they did a good job balancing the horrors of war without completely torpedoing the fun elements of a superhero movie.  My only complaint is the final show down fell into the usual CGI slug-fest that went on a little too long and was a little generic.  

[Rumsy4]

21 minutes ago, InsertWordHere said:

She was bold and audacious. 

A strong female character.

[Camera One]

3 hours ago, Rumsy4 said:

Don't forget to watch the post-credits scene where Wonder Woman apologizes to her.

I just finished the movie, and I am so glad Wonder Woman saw the goodness in her and spared her.

2 hours ago, CCTC said:

It really did have a lot of heart, the WWI setting gave it a unique feel, and they did a good job balancing the horrors of war without completely torpedoing the fun elements of a superhero movie.  My only complaint is the final show down fell into the usual CGI slug-fest that went on a little too long and was a little generic.  

That's exactly how I felt.  I really liked the movie, up until the climax.  I'm not sure I like the "twist" that the minister working towards an armistice was actually Ares.  The morality between killing and not killing seemed a bit inconsistent.  I thought Ares was going to be a less concrete enemy.  I wasn't convinced that he was defeated by "love".

When Ares was trying to tempt Wonder Woman with the illusion of trees, it reminded me of Mother Gothel again... about how humans deserved what they got.  In some of the quieter scenes, Wonder Woman's accent made me think of Jacinda.  Wonder Woman said darkness was inside every human and it's something no hero will ever defeat.  She should talk about that over coffee with Snow.

Overall, though, it was a good movie, so I'm glad I found another superhero that I liked.  

[Rumsy4]

You've been watching too much Once Upon a Time if you're thinking of Mother Gothel when watching Wonder Woman @Camera One heheeh

[Souris]

As a general rule, I'm bored by superhero movies. Or at least the Marvel ones -- I do enjoy the X-Men movies (perhaps more for the actors than the stories, and I generally watch them on DVD rather than in the theater). Before "Wonder Woman," I think the last superhero movie I saw in the theater was "Iron Man 2," and that was so offensively bad, I think it destroyed all interest I had in the genre. Man, I hated that movie. But I wanted to support the studio for FINALLY making a WW movie, so I went to see it, and I liked it a lot -- it had far more emotion and humor than I expected. You could tell it was made by women, and that's a good thing. Though I agree the climax was a bit lacking and could have been better.

[KAOS Agent]

Lana Parrilla compared her character this season to Robin Wright's in Wonder Woman. I'm still not sure how that comparison works. One was a badass warrior who ended up dying gloriously in battle and the other was a bartender/passive resistance member for a resistance that never made a whole lot of sense who ended up Queen of All Realms.