OUAT vs. Other Fairy Tales: Compare & Contrast

[Shanna Marie]

10 hours ago, Camera One said:

Is the movie about the real Christopher Robin, or about the storybook character after he grew up?

It's a fictional character. In fact, "Robin" is his last name, not his middle name (as in Christopher Robin Milne), so they did seem to be separating the fictional character from the real person, and he really could travel to the magical 100-acre wood via a portal in a tree, and there he really did interact with talking stuffed animals. It's sort of done as magical realism.

10 hours ago, Camera One said:

I watched "The 10th Kingdom" way back when it first aired.  I remember practically nothing about it except I think I was disappointed in it overall.  I would love to watch it again in light of "Once Upon a Time".

I remembered nothing but the wolf, but the first episode was kind of fun, and I love the opening credits sequence, in which various New York buildings are transformed into fairytale castles. I did start to lose a little interest in the first episode after they went from New York to the fairytale world, but I was also really tired and starting to fade at that point. The trolls loose in New York were fun.

[CCTC]

10 hours ago, Camera One said:

Christopher Robin was supposed to be The Savior but he used the Shears to cut himself away from his responsibilities and turned into Eeyore at Treasure Island.

This probably is not that far off from what would have been done.  I completely forgot about the Shears.  In the end they did not really add much and just added to the convoluted mistake of trying to expand the Savior role into a whole mythology.  The Aladdin story would have been much more interesting if they focused on having an exciting adventure with some fun characters in an exotic land.  For some reason, I am not sure the word "fun" came up in their writing sessions.

[tennisgurl]

I saw The 10th Kingdom ages ago, and saw a review of it not too long ago, and I thought it was alright. A lot of padding, missed opportunities, and characters doing stuff that either didnt make sense or made them look unlikable in an uninteresting way, but it did have some creative twists on fairytales, and the mythology they established was interesting and was explored well, and I liked the actors for the most part. I kind of want to watch it again when I have the time, to see how it really compares to Once. 

[Shanna Marie]

One of my friends had a "Mad Hatter tea party" last night, at which we watched the Tim Burton Alice in Wonderland movie. I'd seen it before on HBO, but I didn't remember any of it. It's interesting that this Alice was similar in a lot of respects to the Wonderland spin-off Alice (Alice 1.0?), in that she was grown up, her family was trying to force her into a marriage she didn't want, and she returned to Wonderland and ended up becoming a bit of a badass. But I could tell how much this series has warped my perspective because I kept waiting for the revelation that the White Queen was actually the evil one, and we would find out that the Red Queen was just misunderstood. I even had a vague memory that this was what happened, that the White Queen was shady and only pretending to be good and we were going to find out she'd horribly wronged her sister. I guess I've just seen that general theme so many times now that I'd mapped the pattern onto this movie and was surprised that it wasn't how it went.

Though I haven't seen the sequel (we'd just started watching it when I left last night because it was getting late and I had a long drive home), so maybe that's when we learn that the White Queen was secretly evil and the Red Queen was only horrible because her sister once made fun of her giant head.

[tennisgurl]

20 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

Though I haven't seen the sequel (we'd just started watching it when I left last night because it was getting late and I had a long drive home), so maybe that's when we learn that the White Queen was secretly evil and the Red Queen was only horrible because her sister once made fun of her giant head.

Well...

[Shanna Marie]

9 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

30 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

Though I haven't seen the sequel (we'd just started watching it when I left last night because it was getting late and I had a long drive home), so maybe that's when we learn that the White Queen was secretly evil and the Red Queen was only horrible because her sister once made fun of her giant head.

Well...

Oh dear, I just looked it up. So I guess A&E aren't alone in Hollywood in that weird thing of a good person doing one slightly bad thing as a child being responsible for someone becoming full-on evil, and that meaning that the good person is actually kind of evil and the evil person isn't responsible.

[Camera One]

1 hour ago, Shanna Marie said:

So I guess A&E aren't alone in Hollywood in that weird thing of a good person doing one slightly bad thing as a child being responsible for someone becoming full-on evil, and that meaning that the good person is actually kind of evil and the evil person isn't responsible.

As big-shot Hollywood writers, I can definitely tell you we have ALL been the Red Queen before, with people criticizing our writing (aka saying we have a big head).  These holier-than-thou critiques (aka the White Queens) are the true villains while the Red Queen is the underdog that we all want to cheer for.

Sincerely,

A&E

Edited August 11, 2018 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

4 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

Oh dear, I just looked it up. So I guess A&E aren't alone in Hollywood in that weird thing of a good person doing one slightly bad thing as a child being responsible for someone becoming full-on evil, and that meaning that the good person is actually kind of evil and the evil person isn't responsible.

The Last Jedi rings a bell.

[Shanna Marie]

2 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

The Last Jedi rings a bell.

I didn't see it that way. They did show that there were multiple sides to the story, but that Luke wasn't entirely wrong, and Kylo missed out on his chance at redemption when he chose power. I didn't feel like they excused him at all. He wasn't evil because Luke failed him. Luke screwed up because Kylo was already evil and Luke handled that badly. I thought Rey essentially slamming the door in his face at the end was a sign she was done with him and we should be, too.

Now, of course, there's the usual fan faction who thinks he's totally sympathetic and a poor woobie who was mistreated, but you get that with everything. I just don't feel like that was the actual narrative of the movie. I guess we'll see what JJ Abrams ends up doing with the story, but I didn't get any "poor woobie Kylo" vibes from The Last Jedi. It was more like Rian Johnson was setting it up to remove the shadow of doubt. Kylo got every possible chance at redemption, and he missed every single one of them, to the point that even Rey gave up on him. He was basically Regina from late season one through season two. Now, will JJ Abrams make him instantly a hero when he suddenly helps the Rebellion without any real reason given for his change, or will he continue his downward slide, and Rey will get to defeat him?

Maybe this is one reason I've always loved the Star Wars saga. I've never really felt like we were supposed to be sympathizing with the villains. Even when Anakin was basically the Mary Sue of the prequels, he was still shown to be wrong, and the bad stuff that happened to him was his own fault because he made a cascade of bad choices. Fandom being fandom, there were the usual sympathizers with Vader or other villains (like the cult of Boba Fett, when he was basically just a cool costume, not really a character), and there are the people who think it's cool to identify as Sith, but I don't feel like the text encourages that. Vader's redemption was perhaps a bit too easy, and there was the weirdness of him being redeemed by the action that supposedly would have doomed Luke, but at least he died immediately rather than having all the people he tortured groveling to him.

[profdanglais]

39 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

Now, of course, there's the usual fan faction who thinks he's totally sympathetic and a poor woobie who was mistreated

And there are also Kylo/Rey shippers, which is very SwanQueen-esque to me. Two people can have intense, emotional interactions without there being any underlying sexual attraction. 

[Shanna Marie]

I just watched the second episode of The 10th Kingdom, and I'd say it has a lot of the same issues as Once. It's a really clever concept with a good cast, but the execution is rather lacking. It seems like there's material for a good movie, but they stretched it out into a miniseries (really, it's about the length of a regular series, since it's 10 episodes for a 2-hour slot), which means there's a lot of rambling meandering that doesn't really go anywhere. They rely heavily on Idiot Plotting, with the plot driven by the characters doing really dumb things. One thing it does have going for it is location shooting, since they filmed in Europe with real castles, so there's not all the cheesy CGI.

When the prince first appeared, I initially wrote off the actor as a bland pretty boy, but once the prince is turned into a dog and the dog is turned into a prince, he really commits to playing the dog in the body of a prince. There are some real comic chops there for a guy with bland pretty boy looks. Looking back at this, I'm a little surprised Scott Cohen didn't become a lot bigger. He pretty much steals the whole show, and I recall all the reviews being to that effect. I also remember a lot of swooning on various online forums (according to IMDB, 100 unofficial online fan clubs for him popped up within a week of this series airing). But has he done much other than being a ubiquitous guest star? He was a love interest in season one of The Gilmore Girls soon after this series, and he pops up all the time as an episode guest star on just about every show on television, but he doesn't seem to have broken out as any kind of leading man. It's funny when you look back at these things how the people who seemed to have real star quality ended up not making it as big as you'd have thought. I guess you don't know what their ambitions are and what choices they've made. He's worked consistently over decades, which is nothing to sneeze at, and maybe he made some work/life balance choices. I suppose I started worrying when thinking about this and realizing that, unless there's something that hasn't been announced yet, Colin hasn't picked up anything big after Once, and he seemed like he was set for breaking out as a leading man.

[Spartan Girl]

Any fans of Serena Valentino's Disney villain books should check out her new Mother Gothel book, Mother Knows Best. It's way better than OUAT's Gothel story, and her version gives an interesting twist that Gothel

put Rapunzel in an enchanted sleep for ten years in the tower, making her tower life a dream world time loop, sort of like the original Storybrooke curse, and the events of Tangled are the first time she's actually awake.

[companionenvy]

Not quite a fairy tale, but I've just watched the first season and a half of NBC's The Good Place, and thought about it a bit in relation to Once. I'm not going to spoil major twists in the show, but what I'm saying may make it easier to guess some of where it is going, so if you're planning on watching and really want to go in unspoiled, you may want to skip the post.

While TGP is a sitcom, it actually has a decent amount in common, structurally, with Once, in that it has a high-concept premise (the show is set in the afterlife) that is then totally upended in the last episode of the first season, transforming the show for S2. It also involves what are more or less alt-versions of characters, as well as characters gradually becoming aware that something is fundamentally off with the reality they inhabit, leading to scenarios where some people are "awake" and others aren't at various points. 

The difference is that while, as with Once, there are aspects of the premise (original and as it evolves) that don't really stand up to close logical scrutiny, the show is obviously making scrupulous efforts to stay true to certain character beats and examine the emotional ramifications of what is happening. There are certain relationships that change in different versions, and certain things that wind up being core parts of our main characters' identities. When a Major Thing happens at the end of S1, the show remembers that all of these characters are different people who are going to logically have different reactions to and questions about what has just happened. And crucially, the show quickly addresses a lot of the natural questions that viewers would have had following S1. So, the TGP equivalent of questions like "How will the people of SB reconcile their curse memories and their real ones?" or "How are Emma and her parents going to begin to establish a relationship?" actually get addressed in intelligent ways very soon into S2.

And this is a show doing it in 13 half hour episodes a season. 

[Shanna Marie]

One more note about The 10th Kingdom -- they have a Disenchanted Forest! It's apparently a very dangerous place, but I couldn't stop giggling once someone said that name.

[Camera One]

I was reading an interview about "Fear the Walking Dead", which I don't watch.  But I do find it interesting how writers tend to do what they know even when they go to new shows.  In this case, Andrew Chambliss and Ian Goldberg got decent reviews from this website for Season 4, with a rating of C+.

For example:

Quote

But while the new cast additions were welcome, many other creative decisions in Season 4’s first half were much less successful. In particular, the episodes used a time-jump structure, cutting between “Before,” where the Clark family and others..., and “Now,” where the Clarks had lost everything and... These jumps ostensibly existed to build tension, but mostly served to undercut it, obfuscating what the show was trying to accomplish.

And it did seem like they used the flashback structure to make some huge shocking revelation which "felt more like a stunt than an organic storytelling choice".

Also this:

Quote

It certainly didn’t help that the mid-season finale... “No One’s Gone,” was a truly dire episode of TV. The characters all looked like imbeciles...

Reading their interview, I wish they did more of this on "Once:"

Quote

Chambliss: One of the questions we asked when we were mapping out the back half of the season was looking at characters who had not had a lot of time on screen together 

This is very similar to "Once" philosophy:

Quote

Goldberg: What we like is that each episode can feel like its own movie. They have their own tone, and we really just strive for variety.

Chambliss: We don't want to give away too many details about the characters specifics, but we will say one of the things that we're so excited about with the new cast members who are joining for the back half of the season is what they bring to the show in terms of, as Ian was saying, variety. One of the things that is really important in the back half of the show is having moments of humor and lightness interspersed with this very bleak world that everyone is struggling to survive in 

Is "variety" another way of saying "new shiny toys"?

[Camera One]

On 6/4/2018 at 12:21 AM, KingOfHearts said:

Watched Coco for the first time. I really liked how atmospheric it is. Such a gorgeous film. It subverts your expectations for the "follow your dreams" message set by predecessors like Ratatouille, which I appreciated. Things like family shouldn't be thrown away for someone's own pursuits. I'm actually a little insulted that OUAT tried to pay homage in 7x18, since the show didn't do the movie any justice. Coco's mythology is so interesting but let's toss that in favor of Picture!Belle's pleading voiceover. Ugh.

I was trying to find this old post.  Thank goodness for the search function.  I watched "Coco" today for the first time because I wanted to experience the full power behind "The Guardian".  Spoilers for the movie ahead.

I liked the exploration of the Day of the Dead, and the underworld had some fun elements.  I thought the ending was quite moving, though the movie dragged a little and felt long (I didn't have much patience with antics like that dog running around).  The twist about the father surprised me, though like "Frozen", the "good guy" turned out to be the bad.  Although I like the idea that ignoring family is not good, the whole anti-music attitude of the family and the great-great grandmother a little grating.  Overall, it was a solid movie.  The Pixar animation movies are usually pretty solid in quality, though strangely, they don't evoke feelings of wanting to rewatch, despite the incredible visuals.

I'm sad we didn't get a Season 8 of "Once" because I already know how to incorporate this story.  Lucy meets Miguel, a street musician who wants to make it big, and she realizes that he's a character from The Book and his music might get people to remember their pasts (this is assuming the Hyperion Heights Curse wouldn't have been broken yet if we got a Season 8).  Lucy arranges for Henry and Jacinda to have a "date" (ooh la la) to listen to Miguel sing.  Miguel ends up performing at Roni's bar, but we later find out (dun dun dun) that he is actually being blackmailed by Dr. Facilier, since Miguel owes a debt to him and Dr. Facilier needs music to re-energize the magic beignets that Tiana is serving that night.  In the flashbacks, we find out that Miguel was a royal prince, who literally "played the fiddle while Rome burned" (he was from the Ancient Rome realm of story).  In fact, Miguel was singing and playing his guitar instead of protecting his kingdom, so he was responsible for the death of his entire family, which makes him a very deep character with a past that's dark but never bleak.  Meanwhile, Mother Gothel is running out of magic, and she is searching for one of Rapunzel's magical hairs, which had ended up becoming a string on Miguel's guitar because wood nymphs were the patrons of music in the realm of Ancient Rome.  The search for The Last Magical Hair™ is epic and I really shouldn't say too much more in case ABC changes their mind and orders an eighth season!

Edited August 15, 2018 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

Although I like the idea that ignoring family is not good, the whole anti-music attitude of the family and the great-great grandmother a little grating.

I like that it seemed like your typical "follow your dreams" message, only to add another perspective to it. It wasn't just your standard "I have x passion, so I must drop everything to follow it because my family sucks and its what my heart says" that tends to be in most Disney and Pixar movies. That was one pro about Brave. Merida had to make a compromise and wasn't rewarded for being rebellious. Disney seems to be taking a more realistic but meta approach. I'm not sure if its a good progression or a little too self-aware, though it's more subtle in Coco than in Frozen ("You can't marry a guy you just met!") or the live-action remakes.

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

I'm sad we didn't get a Season 8 of "Once" because I already know how to incorporate this story.

Actually...
*knock knock*
Lucy: "Hello? Who are you?"
Miguel: "My name is Miguel... I'm your son. You must come with me to the Disenchanted Underworld! Your family needs you!"

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

The Pixar animation movies are usually pretty solid in quality, though strangely, they don't evoke feelings of wanting to rewatch, despite the incredible visuals.

As beautiful as it was, there was nothing particularly iconic about it, which sounds weird. I didn't find the characters memorable. It's nice to view once but something like Toy Story has more staying power.

[CCTC]

13 hours ago, Camera One said:

Although I like the idea that ignoring family is not good, the whole anti-music attitude of the family and the great-great grandmother a little grating. 

I just watched this movie a few months ago and also really enjoyed it probably more than any Pixar movie in a few years.    My biggest gripe would be the whole family being so over the top anti-music 70 or so years later seemed a little forced.  So many of the relationships were beautifully done, that this plot device seemed a bit contrived and a clumsy way to drive the plot.   

Other than that I it was a nice movie that was beautifully done and had did a nice job creating a film set in a different culture than the typical Disney movie.

13 hours ago, Camera One said:

I'm actually a little insulted that OUAT tried to pay homage in 7x18, since the show didn't do the movie any justice.

I don't remember this at all, but I might not have seen the movie at this point.  I do know they did a bad job in general of creating a Cinderella and corresponding realm that had anything different culturally other than the ethnicity of the actress playing the part.  Everything could have been taken from the 1950's movie (or the season 1 through 6 Enchanted Forest).

They did a little more with Tiana, but that is because any cultural element they used were actually part of the Disney movie.  They did not create anything new for the show just used what was already part of the story.

Edited August 15, 2018 by CCTC

[Camera One]

14 minutes ago, CCTC said:

 do know they did a bad job in general of creating a Cinderella and corresponding realm that had anything different culturally other than the ethnicity of the actress playing the part.  

That reminded me that with a Latina Cinderella, they could have incorporated aspects of "Coco" and the part of the fairytale with Cinderella's mother and the tree (since they never did that with Ashley), and the idea of memories and ancestors helping out.  But as usual, the stuff about Cinderella's mother in Season 7 was more for the development of the villains.  Using imagery from "Coco" with Rumple and Belle just didn't fit.

I would have loved to see an episode called "The Bear Prince".  

Edited August 15, 2018 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

I'm about halfway through The 10th Kingdom -- it turns out it was only 10 hours (with commercials) because I was looking at two different sources. IMDB lists 10 episodes, but Amazon is showing it as 5 episodes that would have fit a 2-hour slot (1.5 hours without commercials). That makes it even more baffling how much time they waste in the middle, which is similar to some of the Once pacing. Almost the entire third episode has no plot momentum. The characters spend most of the episode in the village run by the corrupt Peep family, trying to get back the portal mirror that will get them home. It's being used as a prize for the shepherdess beauty contest, which means the heroine has to compete to try to win it. This might have made for an amusing semi-one-off in a 22-episode season, but when you've got 10 hours to tell a story, it seems like filler. It doesn't really advance the plot (since they lose the mirror again right away, anyway, because these people are idiots). There's no real character development. None of the characters learns anything or grows because of this incident. Then the heroine has to defend Wolf in a murder trial, and that doesn't go anywhere. She doesn't gain any confidence or realize that she's not just a waitress, or anything like that, since she actually fails and it's a deus ex machina that saves the day (did A&E write this under a pseudonym?).

But there is some amusing stuff in this show, like the trolls who steal a boombox while they're in New York and keep listening to "Night Fever" on it until the batteries die (when you think about it, The Brothers Gibb does sound like a band name that would fit a fairytale world). Or the Wolf, who stole a bunch of self-help books and goes around repeating affirmations as he tries to become a better man. The shepherdess pageant with the heroine having to sing a song about sheep and improvising by making up new words to "We Will Rock You" was a fun moment, even if the whole storyline seemed like an unnecessary diversion. I really liked how the spot where Prince Charming saved Snow White with True Love's Kiss had become a tourist attraction. You can even get your portrait painted with you lying in a replica glass coffin.

[Camera One]

I borrowed the "Justice League" movie and watched it tonight, and I think "Once" has ruined me for hope speeches about darkness and light.  The movie did end with one on voiceover and it was hard not to roll my eyes without even hearing what it was saying.  I had read a bunch of critic reviews of "Justice League" when it first came out, and I actually didn't find the movie that bad, with the exception of the boring first 20 minutes or so.  I thought it was much more entertaining than "Batman vs. Superman".  They finally injected some humor since the Zach Snyder movies took themselves way too seriously and were often tediously depressing with constant civilian death and destruction.

I read one review which said DC crossovers were inferior because they didn't have movies for each character before their team-up, since this movie introduced The Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman, in addition to all the other subplots involving Batman, Wonder Woman, Lois Lane, resurrecting Superman and the villain.  In some ways, I do agree it's better for each character to have a movie first.  In some ways, I agree, since I couldn't understand why Aquaman was so grumpy without some explanation (he seemed more like a merman).  But as comic relief, I was fine without much background about The Flash and what we got about Cyborg was enough to carry his brief arc in the movie.  I also liked the conversations Wonder Woman and Batman had with each other.  It was impossible to get into the mind of Batman in "Superman vs. Batman" but I felt just through conversation what was driving this Batman and why he was so weary.  

Once the team started working together, I thought it was still relatively fun to watch.  That's the lost potential from "Once"... just having a bunch of Disney or fairytale or folk or classic novels together, would have fun even if they weren't changed or adapted.  The villain in "Justice League" was horribly generic, but for once, I was glad not to watch a villain distract from the protagonists.

Sometimes, the fact that some of the familiar characters in "Once" were so different (sometimes completely opposite) to their fairytale/Disney/classic novel origins that the mash-ups actually became LESS fun because it was hard to buy that it was actually Jasmine, or The Count of Monte Cristo, or Dorothy, or Tiana, or whoever, even if they dressed like that character.  

Edited August 16, 2018 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

51 minutes ago, Camera One said:

Sometimes, the fact that some of the familiar characters in "Once" were so different (sometimes completely opposite) to their fairytale/Disney/classic novel origins that the mash-ups actually became LESS fun because it was hard to buy that it was actually Jasmine, or The Count of Monte Cristo, or Dorothy, or Tiana, or whoever, even if they dressed like that character.  

Of course it didn't help that A&E's versions of your favorite characters often sucked. It's not like they created their own Jasmine but she could hold her own. Nobody asked for Insecure!Jasmine, Jaded!Dorothy, or Bitchy!Tiana. There's many cases where there's no point to a character having a famous name attached to them. Alice could've been just some blonde girl named Alice. She didn't have to be from Wonderland. Her own story was interesting and didn't need a namedrop to be engaging. I really didn't care that she was an alternate Alice. If I wanted something closer to the original persona, I'd watch OUATIW where her attachment to the source material actually mattered. Namedropping is just lazy.

If you're going to adapt characters, use more than just their names and a few iconic elements. Even though characters like Hansel/Gretel, Snow White, and Red Riding Hood had the details of the stories changed, their personalities stayed intact. Cruella's story was completely different from 101 Dalamatians, but I still see her as Cruella DeVil and that's a lot of fun. It's not the hair or her car - it's the character's essence and personality. 

I actually loved the Frozen characters, and they were pretty verbatim as if they jumped right from the movie itself. I wouldn't have minded more characters like that being tossed into different situations. It would've been fun to see pure Disney-esque characters faced with darker or more realistic scenarios. 

Edited August 16, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[Shanna Marie]

11 hours ago, Camera One said:

That's the lost potential from "Once"... just having a bunch of Disney or fairytale or folk or classic novels together, would have fun even if they weren't changed or adapted. 

I think that's why 2A's Team Princess adventure is my favorite arc of the series. Aurora wasn't that different from her movie version to start with, but we got to see her get stronger and grow during the course of the adventure. Mulan was recognizable from the movie. We'd already seen how Snow White had changed, but she was still basically Snow White at heart, even if she was using a sword and bow. Emma was an original character who didn't have to be mapped to a known character. We got to see a big crossover among characters who were familiar -- and then they ran into Captain Hook, who was different enough from his book/movie version to be a twist on the character but who still had recognizable traits. It was the crossover/mashup I wish we'd seen more of.

10 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

Alice could've been just some blonde girl named Alice. She didn't have to be from Wonderland. Her own story was interesting and didn't need a namedrop to be engaging. I really didn't care that she was an alternate Alice.

Did we ever even get more than that one scene in Wonderland with her that had anything at all to do with the Alice story? There was no real point to her being "Alice." They didn't even specify that time didn't pass in Wonderland, and that explained the wonky timeline, where she was born soon after the curse would have happened but was still a teenager decades later, after her father had grown old and then de-aged. They were just sticking labels on characters at random.

[Camera One]

1 minute ago, Shanna Marie said:

Did we ever even get more than that one scene in Wonderland with her that had anything at all to do with the Alice story? There was no real point to her being "Alice." They didn't even specify that time didn't pass in Wonderland, and that explained the wonky timeline, where she was born soon after the curse would have happened but was still a teenager decades later, after her father had grown old and then de-aged. They were just sticking labels on characters at random.

Maybe they were trying to use Wonderland to explain why she appeared to be crazy and talked in riddles?  In lieu of character development, they told us she spent years in Wonderland.  And now Wonderland became a place where villains popped in to pick poisonous mushrooms.  Remember how hard it was for The Evil Queen to get to Wonderland in the Season 1 flashback?  She had to ask Jefferson for help.  But Drizella got there pretty easily.  In the spinoff, Will needed to steal a magical mirror from Maleficent.  But somehow, Jacinda's mother got to Wonderland and Jacinda's father followed her, and Alice could go back and forth.

[Rumsy4]

I've been watching Father Brown on Netflix. It's based on GK Chesterton's character, but set in the 1950s for the TV show. It's actually not that great of a show as far as quality goes, but the episodes are light-watching and easy to binge. All this intro for this tidbit: The last episode of Season 4 is titled "The Wrath of Baron Samdi" and Baron Samdi is--you guessed it--a voodoo priest. 

Edited August 21, 2018 by Rumsy4

[KingOfHearts]

4 minutes ago, Rumsy4 said:

I've been watching Father Brown on Netflix. It's based on GK Chesterton's character, but set in the 1950s for the TV show. It's actually not that great of a show as far as quality goes, but the episodes are light-watching and easy to binge. All this intro for this tidbit: The last episode of Season 4 is titled "The Wrath of Baron Samdi" and Baron Samdi is--you guessed it--a voodoo priest. 

 

Samdi is a direct reference to voodoo, which is probably why A&E chose it for Dr. Facilier. "Baron Samdi" is a name of a spirit that looks oddly like Dr. Facilier's original depiction. 

Edited August 21, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[Rumsy4]

Huh. I never knew.

[KingOfHearts]

41 minutes ago, Rumsy4 said:

Huh. I never knew.

Google is my best friend.

[Camera One]

It's amazing how much we've learned from "Once Upon a Time".  It's such an enriching show for us all.

[Shanna Marie]

I finished watching The 10th Kingdom, and it really did end up having a lot in common with OUAT. It's like fairytale-based shows are cursed, or something. Though, fortunately, this one didn't have the skewed morality. The bad guys were bad and the good guys were good, and no one made excuses for the bad guys or tried to tear the good guys down. But there was the same kind of wonky pacing OUAT suffered from, with a lot of pointless rambling until everything happened at the very end of the season. In this case, we know through the whole series that the evil queen has turned the prince into a dog and a dog into a copy of the prince and is planning to take over all the kingdoms when the royalty comes to the prince's coronation. And the good guys have been traveling with the prince dog, who they know has been turned into a dog by the queen, the whole time, but it isn't until near the end of the next to last episode that it's suggested that maybe they need to do something about that. All of the effort to deal with the queen happens in the last episode -- and even there, when they're near the palace, they waste time and get sidetracked.

The dog is brilliant, though. He must have been very well-trained, and he's incredibly expressive. We can hear the prince's thoughts, and I swear, you forget that they aren't actually coming from the dog we see because he has just the right expression and body language.

I would love to see the series that fits the opening credits sequence. It's a little creepy seeing New York landmarks turned into fairytale settings, kind of like the times various curses were undoing Storybrooke, but there seems to be a story in there.

Anyway, it's worth a watch if you have Amazon Prime and are bored, there are some good moments, but it's mostly a core of a potentially good show trapped in a lot of nonsense (sounds familiar, huh?). It looked like they were setting it up to be a regular series or have a sequel, but I guess the ratings didn't hold up to the budget.

[KingOfHearts]

On 8/20/2018 at 8:40 PM, Camera One said:

It's amazing how much we've learned from "Once Upon a Time".  It's such an enriching show for us all.

It amazes me how sometimes the writers seem to do their homework and come up with interesting names/references, but in other instances it's obvious they never read the source material. S7 was sprinkled with clever names ("vidrio", "samdi", Remy, etc.) and some fun references. (Like Alice embodying the various Wonderland characters.) But then there's crappy unnecessary ones that seem to gravitate toward Rumpbelle just in general, like the Up and Coco iconography. 

[Camera One]

It's probably because names are like little Easter Eggs, and they like coming up with those.  Maybe this is what happened:

A&E: "After a 5-day marathon, we've come up with it!  Dr. Facilier's name in Hyperion Heights will be Samdi, with all its voodoo meaning!  Now writers, you have 45 minutes left to come up with the plotline and finish the script for the Tiana episode and somehow work Samdi and Drew into the Hyperion Heights storyline.  We're shooting tomorrow.  Good luck!  We'll be in the next room coming up with the name of Lily's father."

Edited August 23, 2018 by Camera One

[Camera One]

I found a DVD called "The Witches of Oz" at the library the other day.  Apparently, it was a TV mini-series from 2012? 

It has questionable acting and horrible CGI.  I've watched about half of it.  Because that's what we "Once" fans do, LOL.

This is the prologue at the start: "Ages ago, our world was full of magic.  Wizards, witches and fantastic beings roamed the land.  The pure of heart were the guardians of the greatest magic.  They practised their art for the good of all.  And in time, some humans would learn to harness magic for darker purposes, seeking to oppress and dominate the world , and as they grew powerful, they sought to possess all magic, waging war on all that knew it.  The fantastic creatures that remained were hunted until they were all but exterminated and their powers stolen.   The world grew dark."  Sounds familiar, Mother Gothel?

Then, a Munchkin wizard harnessed the magic into a magic spell that he locked into a book (locked with a key), and he created a new realm, a refuge for those "hunted by humanity", a place called Oz.  But in Oz, the Wicked Witch of the East and West sought the book, and Dorothy grabbed the key that opened the book, and came back to Kansas and woke up with amnesia.

The first hour or so follows an Adult Dorothy who became an author writing stories about Oz, continuing a series started by her grandfather Frank.  Dorothy believed she was writing from her imagination.  She said goodbye to Uncle Henry and went to NYC trying to secure a book deal.

So far, the movie has been pretty bad because of the bad acting, script and visuals.  Some of the NYC stuff is quite tedious.  I'm 1 hour and 20 minutes into it, and finally, it has gotten somewhat more interesting.  

Spoilers:

Spoiler

It looks like Princess Langwidere is on Earth trying to get the secret of what happened to the key from Dorothy.  These annoying little elves also appeared, which finally prompted Dorothy to "remember".  I've just gotten to the part where Uncle Henry (who just died) reveals to Dorothy in a letter what *really* happened to her as a child.  Glinda has an encounter with Dorothy in NYC to activate some magic to re-create the key.

I can't help but wonder if some of these elements could have been used on "Once" for its Oz arc.

Edited August 24, 2018 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

I don't know why adapting Oz has always been such a challenge. The only really good adaptation was the MGM film. It's actually got somewhat deep lore for a childrens' series with a lot of stories to mine. It's a shame no one really knows what angle to go with it.

@Camera One, you're giving me traumatic flashbacks of "Tin Man" and "Emerald City".

Edited August 24, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

I watched the other hour and a half, and it is truly a horrible production in all areas.  Apparently, an abridged version was briefly released in the theater as "Dorothy and the Witches of Oz".  

Spoilers below, in case anyone wants to put themselves through it.  The trailer on Youtube actually didn't make it look that bad, but it really was.  I'll reveal some of the "twists" below.

Spoiler

The middle portion was briefly better, since it provided a flashback of when Dorothy was a kid and how she came to be in Oz.  I thought it was a neat concept that Dorothy left in the tornado at the turn of the century (1890s?) but she came back in the twister in 1992, so Dorothy was actually Uncle Henry's aunt.  Dorothy's father Frank was able to follow Dorothy's adventures in a snowglobe (for a few years), and that's how the original Oz books were written.

After that part, the movie just got progressively worse and worse.  Young Dorothy as a kid couldn't kill the Witch of the West because of her guilt over the house landing on the Witch of the East.  So insecure Adult Dorothy just became really grating after a while.  The movie uses A&E's favorite technique... amnesia, with memories slowly coming back when convenient.  

Dorothy's book agent turns out to be the Wicked Witch in disguise, and she summons the jabberwocky, bandersnitch and the Nome King and his army to pillage and destroy NYC (plus purple smoke/flashes of light emanating from the sky destroying buildings), so there's plenty of really bad CGI scenes of destruction.  The Wicked Witch also turns humans into Winged Monkeys.  

This line from the Witch did make me laugh though: "After I enslave this world... Neverland.  Camelot.  Or maybe Wonderland.  Shangri-La.  Narnia.  I shall rule them all!!!"  I guess she would be jealous of Regina, The Queen of Everything.

The worst thing was probably the climatic ending, whereby Dorothy insists the Wicked Witch is her best friend, telling her "You could be somebody good, somebody great, don't you see?".  This was after the Wicked Witch set the Scarecrow on fire. 

Once she got her memories back, Dorothy then used the powerful spell to turn the Wicked Witch back into a human but then the Witch/agent cries because she had never had friends before, but the tears cause her to melt and vaporize, but not before thanking Dorothy (I guess for seeing the best in her?).  

Dorothy lives happily ever after in NYC, but the dumb movie ends in a cliffhanger where some NYC cops ended up in Oz and Princess Langwidere (who chops people's heads off) finds them.

Edited August 24, 2018 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

Riveting. ?

[Camera One]

1 hour ago, KingOfHearts said:

Just watched a video about Disney's twist villains and why they don't always work. For some of them, there's no indication they could possibly be evil before the reveal. They act like decent people but turn into complete psychopaths in order to drive the conflict, to the point it comes off more as inconsistent than an actual evil scheme. It just made me think of OUAT and how obsessed A&E are with their "twists", even when they don't make sense and make the characters robotic slaves to the plot. 

That seems to be trend with a lot of recent Disney/Pixar movies (and a lot of other movies, as well as TV shows and books).  I don't want to reveal too many spoilers, so the most well-known recent example would be "Frozen", where Prince Hans is revealed to be the villain late in the movie.  Pixar spoilers:

Spoiler

In both "Up" and "Coco", someone that the protagonist looks up to, turns out to be murderous villains.

I'm rarely a fan of such "twist" reveals, since often, there are zero clues until the big surprise.  I think the Prince Hans twist was universally praised because it made fun of the idea of love at first sight so it subverted expectations.

Surprisingly, "Once" hasn't had characters turning out to be villains too often.  Villains are often obvious.  "Once" did over-play the cheap "twist" when a villain impersonates using glamour spells, though.  

I watched a video which tried to argue that Disney villains fall into two categories - outcast villains vs. powerful tyrant villains.  According to that video, if the villain is an outcast (eg. Scar), the hero needs to accept responsibility/their rightful position (eg. Simba).  And if the villain is a powerful tyrant (eg. Governor Radcliffe) operating within a corrupt/unfair social system, the hero needs to be a rebel and assert/accept their individuality and fight against unfairness of the system (eg. Pocahontas).  

That dichotomy I think is an oversimplification, and even the video maker provides some examples at the end where there is a combination.  But I suppose it does pull out some of the major patterns in storytelling.  On "Once", Snow's character episodes are often about gaining the confidence to accept her birthright as a leader (which makes Regina being crowned Queen of Everything quite strange).   Regina is in some ways both an "outcast" and a "powerful tyrant".  

Someone in the comments mentioned that the newer Pixar movies avoids these villain stereotypes by having "twists" of seemingly okay characters turning out to be villains, or there are no villains and the character has a more internal struggle.

Edited August 25, 2018 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

12 minutes ago, Camera One said:

Surprisingly, "Once" hasn't had characters turning out to be villains too often.  Villains are often obvious.  "Once" did over-play the cheap "twist" when a villain impersonates using glamour spells, though.  

OUAT does the exact opposite. It does "twist heroes". You thought Emma was going to save the day? Nope, it's Regina! Wait - Rumple did something unselfish?! How can this be?! I think the only twist villain was Arthur. The point I was trying to make was that the "twist villains" are typically cheap and thrown in last minute to give the story conflict, like most of A&E's twists. Villains like King Candy work because you know they're evil pretty much the whole time. It's not like he was nice for the first 45 minutes then all of a sudden changed without any hints or indication. Most of the Pixar villains work because their motivations make sense. I think Disney overuses the concept when it's not even necessary to hide the villain from the audience. (Like in Zootopia.)

Edited August 25, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

Zootopia is next on my list of movies to watch.  Too bad that horrible "Witches of Oz" jumped the queue, LOL.

I was thinking about how it was so hard for A&E (and most writers) to come up with internal struggles for "heroes" or non-villains.  By 2A, it seems like they had no ideas left for Snow, and by Season 6, they had no ideas left for Emma after her walls were finally broken down (though even in Season 5, she was mostly part of a romantic storyline).  

The latest Justice League movie wasn't great, but I did find it interesting how they decided to approach "internal" struggles for the heroes. It was probably easiest for the new characters they introduced, but it was no doubt tougher for the three characters that had already been in previous movies.  Superman didn't really have an internal arc except maybe adjusting to being alive again.  Batman was trying to learn to work as a team and struggling with his physical limits, while Wonder Woman was learning to step out of the shadows, and they were both working through some guilt and working towards becoming leaders.  I think it sort of worked.  

[KingOfHearts]

2 minutes ago, Camera One said:

Zootopia is next on my list of movies to watch.  Too bad that horrible "Witches of Oz" jumped the queue, LOL.

I actually really enjoy Zootopia. It's one of my favorite modern Disney movies. Without revealing anything, the villain leaves a lot to be desired. It's one of those odd family films that actually does social commentary correctly.

Edited August 25, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[KingOfHearts]

4 minutes ago, Camera One said:

I was thinking about how it was so hard for A&E (and most writers) to come up with internal struggles for "heroes" or non-villains.  By 2A, it seems like they had no ideas left for Snow, and by Season 6, they had no ideas left for Emma after her walls were finally broken down (though even in Season 5, she was mostly part of a romantic storyline).  

I don't think you could've done this show anywhere near the finished product without a lot of inner conflict or moral conundrums. You couldn't do the prime-time drama complexity while preserving the black/white worldview of fairy tales or Disney films. A&E wanted to ask hard questions and inject ambiguity, but they failed at executing what they set out to do. They bit off more than they could chew. Whether a mass-murdering psychopath could be redeemable or not is a little more complicated than, "What happens after a happy ending?" Over time, A&E started contradicting their own "lessons". I really wouldn't mind messed up stuff like Rumpbelle's toxic relationship if the show was self-aware enough to know it's twisted. But instead, it kept falling back on the "Disney values" of hope and love, which turned out to be more of an over-simplification than a sense of morality.

[Camera One]

1 minute ago, KingOfHearts said:

I really wouldn't mind messed up stuff like Rumpbelle's toxic relationship if the show was self-aware enough to know it's twisted. But instead, it kept falling back on the "Disney values" of hope and love, which turned out to be more of an over-simplification than a sense of morality.

That's a good way of looking at it, and it explains why the moral messaging in this show was so disturbing.  They presented these messed up scenarios and imposed upon it those values even when it did not fit.  From A&E's interview, they've convinced themselves that Rumple was a loving man deep inside, Rumbelle was a fairytale romance, Regina was an underdog who deserved glory and love, Cora and Regina were a mother-and-daughter who deep inside loved one another, etc.  They constantly told us how we as the audience were supposed to feel.  

[andromeda331]

12 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

I don't think you could've done this show anywhere near the finished product without a lot of inner conflict or moral conundrums. You couldn't do the prime-time drama complexity while preserving the black/white worldview of fairy tales or Disney films. A&E wanted to ask hard questions and inject ambiguity, but they failed at executing what they set out to do. They bit off more than they could chew. Whether a mass-murdering psychopath could be redeemable or not is a little more complicated than, "What happens after a happy ending?" Over time, A&E started contradicting their own "lessons". I really wouldn't mind messed up stuff like Rumpbelle's toxic relationship if the show was self-aware enough to know it's twisted. But instead, it kept falling back on the "Disney values" of hope and love, which turned out to be more of an over-simplification than a sense of morality.

That makes a lot of sense. Self-aware would have been so great for the show. It is very annoying to have Belle constantly going back to Rumple with no changes and convinced once again he's good. It would make more sense if she knew what he was but went back to him either she didn't know why or eventually forced to realize she loved a dangerous man and was drawn to a dangerous man. Regina's endless whining would have been a lot more better if she was self-aware of her past and the crappy things she had done. Wondering if someone like her could change. Or still have a happy ending after all she had done? 

[KingOfHearts]

3 hours ago, Camera One said:

That's a good way of looking at it, and it explains why the moral messaging in this show was so disturbing.  They presented these messed up scenarios and imposed upon it those values even when it did not fit.  From A&E's interview, they've convinced themselves that Rumple was a loving man deep inside, Rumbelle was a fairytale romance

If we're going to superimpose "Disney values" on the situation in a more realistic sense, Belle was right not to initially judge Rumple based on his appearance. But after she learned Rumple was a murderer and a torturer, it was apparent he had no love in his heart. (Much like Gaston. Oh the irony.)  It's not that "love" and "hope" don't apply, but the situation itself is in conflict with the very thing Belle preached about. She used virtues as an excuse, not a way of living.

3 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

That makes a lot of sense. Self-aware would have been so great for the show. It is very annoying to have Belle constantly going back to Rumple with no changes and convinced once again he's good. It would make more sense if she knew what he was but went back to him either she didn't know why or eventually forced to realize she loved a dangerous man and was drawn to a dangerous man. Regina's endless whining would have been a lot more better if she was self-aware of her past and the crappy things she had done. Wondering if someone like her could change. Or still have a happy ending after all she had done? 

I'd love it if the show was just a dark deconstruction of the Disney/fairy tale formula. But I doubt A&E even know what "deconstruction" means. I could tolerate Regina's whining a lot more if Emma could slap her in the face once a while and tell her to pull herself together.

Edited August 25, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[andromeda331]

22 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

If we're going to superimpose "Disney values" on the situation in a more realistic sense, Belle was right not to initially judge Rumple based on his appearance. But after she learned Rumple was a murderer and a torturer, it was apparent he had no love in his heart. (Much like Gaston. Oh the irony.)  It's not that "love" and "hope" don't apply, but the situation itself is in conflict with the very thing Belle preached about. She used virtues as an excuse, not a way of living.

I'd love it if the show was just a dark deconstruction of the Disney/fairy tale formula. But I doubt A&E even know what "deconstruction" means. I could tolerate Regina's whining a lot more if Emma could slap her in the face once a while and tell her to pull herself together.

Me too. It would have been easier to stomach Regina's whining if Emma could slap her or Snow was allowed to mention things Regina did or that she was her victim instead of sitting there listening to her abuser sit there and whine about how her life sucks. A&E don't know what deconstruction means or self-aware. If they did they'd be more self-aware about Regina and Rumple. Lots of writers love their characters even ones who are awful. But they are aware their characters are awful or did awful things. These two don't have that. They completely believe everything they do or say is so funny, sassy and completely right. But another place that would have been great for self-aware would have been the return of Marion. Regina after hearing from Robin how hard and painful it was for him to lose his wife and how he blamed himself. Instead of her being hurt and angry, or maybe after that in the first episode of season four imagine how different it would have been if Regina remembered those words? To have it hit her how much she hurt him and she did so without thinking or care. Imagine if instead of being all sad because her boyfriend of a week went back to his wife for that to really hurt her hard? Fall apart because of how much she hurt him without care and realize how much she hurt everyone else? That could have been a great time for her to show empathy and realized what she done really hurt someone she now cared about.   

[tennisgurl]

8 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

I actually really enjoy Zootopia. It's one of my favorite modern Disney movies. Without revealing anything, the villain leaves a lot to be desired. It's one of those odd family films that actually does social commentary correctly.

What I liked about Zootopia is that, while it has a relatively simple message (prejudice is bad) it went about it in a really interesting and complex way, and showed the many ways that prejudice can affect a society, and individuals. Not only is it bad to just be a straight up racist jerk, but it also gets into how even really well intentioned people can have their own biases that they need to address, and that people can be oppressors as well as oppressed in different situations, and how fear and paranoia can really do damage, and how unscrupulous people can take advantage of that fear. Its a surprisingly complex commentary from a movie about a cute talking bunny in a police officer uniform. In a way, the villain was only needed to get the plot going and to have a show down at the end, and even when the bad guy was caught, the heroes still admit that it doesn't mean everything will be honky dory. The real villain was the racism that existed in their society, and the bad guy is just the one who lit the match to get everything in the open. 

Those are the complexities and shades of grey that Once really struggled with. Instead of just giving its heroes some flaws, or its villains some sympathy or valid reasons behind their actions (even if they go too far) their version of complex was "lets make it so that every evil thing the villains do is white washed, and make the heroes look like dicks every five seconds" which was just embarrassingly half assed. 

[KingOfHearts]

As helpless as some of the Disney princesses were, they didn't grovel at the feet of their captors hoping to be friends. They didn't chant "there's still good in their heart" before villains actively changed their behavior for the better. Even meek picks like Snow White and Aurora knew danger when they saw it. They believed the best until their livlihoods were threatened. People give Disney princesses flack for not being proactive or independent enough, but the ones on OUAT have even worse problems in some cases.

[Camera One]

3 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

As helpless as some of the Disney princesses were, they didn't grovel at the feet of their captors hoping to be friends. They didn't chant "there's still good in their heart" before villains actively changed their behavior for the better. Even meek picks like Snow White and Aurora knew danger when they saw it. They believed the best until their livlihoods were threatened. People give Disney princesses flack for not being proactive or independent enough, but the ones on OUAT have even worse problems in some cases.

A lot of the Disney Princesses and Princes and their friends were very unfair to the villains, if you think about it.  

Snow White:  She never told the dwarves that her stepmother took care of her for years after her father died, which was blatantly unfair.  The fact that she was singing shows how happy she was at the palace.  The Dwarves and the forest animals had darkness in their hearts since they never gave The Evil Queen a second chance before they chased her up a cliff to a high point during a thunderstorm.  They were culpable for her murder.  Mean!

Sleeping Beauty: Merriweather was so hurtful at the baby's christening.  She told poor Maleficent, "You weren't wanted!"  It is because of Maleficent that Aurora had such a wonderful childhood, away from the trappings of court.  Prince Philip was like Maleficent when he killed her with the sword.  He chose the EASY way.  He didn't make the effort to find a different way, so he should be ashamed of himself.

Cinderella: Cinderella was very mean and biased towards Lucifer, JUST because she didn't like her stepmother.  She was part of the clique with the mice and animals that was very "mean girls".  Just like Snow White, she was ungrateful and never acknowledged how the stepmother gave her food and shelter for years after the father died.  

The new age Disney heroes are just as guilty, but I'll have to stop here to shed a tear for misunderstood Evil Queen, Maleficent and Lady Tremaine, three strong women who were TOO strong for the societies in which they lived.  

Edited August 26, 2018 by Camera One

[andromeda331]

I hope this is the right thread to ask this question. From Twilight, 50 Shades of Grey and ONCE's A&E it never stops amazing me that their plans were never to create a story about domestic abuse. The first two are suppose to romance stories even though the guy in both stories is abusive, controlling and stalking and ONCE has Rumple who we're suppose to think is such a really cool and amazing man but he murdered his first wife because she left him. His treatment of Belle and their relationship comes off looking more like domestic abuse. Each time Belle tries to leave it always looks like she leaving an abusive boyfriend and later husband. From her conversation with Ruby and her hiding from Rumple on the Jolly Roger.  Regina raped Graham for decades, tried to gaslight her son and treated him horribly. But we're suppose to think these are really great characters. How do you write a story or TV show script trying to write a epic romance or epic stories about the awesomeness of the Evil Queen and Rumple and end up making instead textbook examples of domestic abuse? How do you do that on accident? It seems like when you want to build Rumple and Belle's romance you wouldn't have Rumple have murdered his first wife. Or Regina murdering Graham after he decided to break up with her after raping him for decades. Or have Edward tell Bella he's been watching her sleep for months without her knowing. Or Christian showing up at Ana's work and buying a bunch of items  you can use for tying up and murdering someone and repeatedly stalking her. How do you...when you realize a lot of people have notice from reading the first books or season one and two of ONCE that your characters are coming off abusive and frankly psycho and/or a textbook case of domestic abuse when that you don'ts decide to fix that in your next book or season by fixing all of that. But instead doubling down on their horrible behavior and making them worse. Why would you do that instead of trying to make the characters more likeable, more like you intended and less psycho? If they had done that or we are meant to see each relationship as abusive and the men in it as abusive men that too would have worked better too. Or woman in Regina's case.  

[Guest]

On ‎8‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 2:26 PM, Camera One said:

That's a good way of looking at it, and it explains why the moral messaging in this show was so disturbing.  They presented these messed up scenarios and imposed upon it those values even when it did not fit.  From A&E's interview, they've convinced themselves that Rumple was a loving man deep inside, Rumbelle was a fairytale romance, Regina was an underdog who deserved glory and love, Cora and Regina were a mother-and-daughter who deep inside loved one another, etc.  They constantly told us how we as the audience were supposed to feel.  

I blame the Sopranos for this show.  I blame the Sopranos for a lot of things.  In this case, I think A&E spent so long developing this that the critical acclaim given to innovative (at the time) shows that made the antagonists or villains or bad guys influenced them.  They were the protagonist and their moral code shaped the universe they existed in.  I think A&E wanted that critical acclaim and they thought it was easy and they were good enough and smart enough and doggone it people would just like it enough that they could pull it off.  Many shows I watched were ruined by hacks who thought the same thing.  I would shake my fist "I just need one character to root for, damnit!"

In this case, A&E weren't willing to standup to the network.  So we ended up with this mess that was half classic fairy tale (which Disney/ABC wanted) and half fairy tale from the POV of the villain (which A&E wanted) and they can't coexist. 

Edited August 28, 2018 by ParadoxLost