OUAT vs. Other Fairy Tales: Compare & Contrast

[Camera One]

Very true.  We are all Belle.  Deep down, it's clear we were in love with what the show could have been.  We came back to it over and over again, attracted by the hope of a genuine character moment (literally).  We were always trying to dig for the tiny morsel of good, usually in the acting or the casting.  And now, we're flipping back through the photo album, still unwilling to let go and wishing we could have changed the show, when we had zero control over it.   I'm afraid even Archie can't handle these deep-seated problems LOL.

Edited October 22, 2018 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

And some of us deal with our disappointments by reading and writing made up stories based on the made up stories in the show. Very healthy, I’m sure. :-p

[CCTC]

18 hours ago, Camera One said:

even Archie can't handle these deep-seated problems LOL.

Now I want to see an episode of Bob Newhart's psychiatrist character (Bob Hartley - I am old) dealing with everyone in group therapy.  His understated reactions would be classic.  There would have to be an end of the episode scene with him in bed with Emily while he tries to summarize the madness.

[Camera One]

From link in Other Cast Roles thead.

Quote

“[Tell Me a Story] is a lot heavier, a lot darker, and with a lot more adult themes — things like addiction, and greed and lust. A host of things that Once Upon a Time would not really [address],” said actor Michael Raymond-James, who plays Mitch in the new series and coincidentally also starred as Neal Cassidy in OUAT.

How dare you.  "Once" dealt with addiction to magic, greed for power and lust for huntsmen.  

Quote

“I think it’s very fitting for the world we’re living in now: [despite negative events], you can still find hope, and the morals are still there,” said Ramirez.

Hmm... I wonder where I've heard this before.  They forgot to capitalize HOPE.

The shows seems more like "Grimm" than OUAT, with fairy tale-based stories playing out in a modern city. 

Edited October 27, 2018 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

OUAT wasn't dark enough to have things like rape or genocide... oh wait. (It's a Disney show!)

I'm interested in watching Tell Me a Story and seeing if it attempts to fill the void left behind by OUAT, for better or for worse.

Edited October 27, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

I'm trying the series "The Librarians" and I'm a few episodes into Season 1. 

I just watched the episode where they go to a small town where fairy tales are playing out, and it turns out to be an ancient book of fairy tales that drains the listeners' energy.  At the end, the book becomes blank.  There were a few throwaway lines about Aesop's lies and Beatrice Potter creating an inaccurate version of events.  It was a fun one-off.  But I still like how "Once" played the concept straight, with a town full of fairy tale characters, turning them into three-dimensional humans (well, in their single centric in season 1 before they became glorified extras, that is).

[andromeda331]

40 minutes ago, Camera One said:

I'm trying the series "The Librarians" and I'm a few episodes into Season 1. 

I just watched the episode where they go to a small town where fairy tales are playing out, and it turns out to be an ancient book of fairy tales that drains the listeners' energy.  At the end, the book becomes blank.  There were a few throwaway lines about Aesop's lies and Beatrice Potter creating an inaccurate version of events.  It was a fun one-off.  But I still like how "Once" played the concept straight, with a town full of fairy tale characters, turning them into three-dimensional humans (well, in their single centric in season 1 before they became glorified extras, that is).

I liked the flip that Cassandra was the prince and getting hit on and free drinks from all the women.  Telling Stone that he had "bird on him" and it being an actual bird.

[KingOfHearts]

Just saw The Nutcracker and the Four Realms. It's basically a worse and more generic version of Tim Burton's already generic Alice in Wonderland. Spoiler tag for those who are just dying to see it.

Spoiler

Disney is still addicted to surprise villains. Two-thirds of the way into the film, you find out that the Sugar Plum Fairy is actually evil and Mother Ginger, who's been puffed up as the worst person to ever exist, is actually the good guy. What's funny about Sugar Plum is that she's Blue Fairy/Glinda on steroids, with enough absent-minded sweetness to give anyone high blood sugar. She seems dumb, but she's actually just using the protagonist to get what she needs to wipe out everybody else and become a dictator. It's a horribly done twist because while we don't see Mother Ginger actually do anything evil, there is absolutely no foreshadowing that Sugar Plum is shady. You can't even squint and see it. It's a shame, because I feel as though you could do that with a "dumb" magical good character. It'd be a nice twist to see that their act was just a facade. The Sugar Plum Fairy, however, is evil because she's upset her creator left her. (When she never shows any sign of that and neither does anyone else.) It's also never explained why Mother Ginger isn't the only stupid one and why she was loyal to her creator.

The first section of the movie uses a lot of Tchaikovsky's score and has some breathtaking Victorian England Christmas scenes. It feels like a ballet, even though it isn't. I physically cringed though when one of the characters uttered "boyfriend", as if that were a term in that era. Most of the dialogue was very 2018. I don't know why every female lead now has to be an inventor. 

[Camera One]

Hmm.. interesting.  I usually like fantasy, but the trailer just didn't make me that interested.  I guess I'll watch it at some point once it's on DVD, unless I happen to be at a theater and there's nothing else to watch.  The only thing that intrigued me about the title was what the "four realms" are but they listed them in the trailer and they didn't seem that interesting.

Edited November 4, 2018 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

18 minutes ago, Camera One said:

Hmm.. interesting.  I usually like fantasy, but the trailer just didn't make me that interested.  I guess I'll watch it at some point once it's on DVD, unless I happen to be at a theater and there's nothing else to watch.  The only thing that intrigued me about the title was what the "four realms" are but they listed them in the trailer and they didn't seem that interesting.

 

If there's a cliche in a fantasy movie, it's in there. It was like this weird modge-podge of Alice in Wonderland, Wizard of Oz, Narnia, and... Star Wars. There was absolutely nothing original about it.

Oh, they also stole the the climax from The Santa Clause 2, LOL.

Edited November 4, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

You know us too well... really badly written unoriginal generic mish-mash fantasy with strong females and bad twists, and we're there!  

[KingOfHearts]

10 minutes ago, Camera One said:

You know us too well... really badly written unoriginal generic mish-mash fantasy with strong females and bad twists, and we're there!  

Why do you think I had to see it??

[Writing Wrongs]

I saw it. Um..the visuals were nice. But yeah, it wasn't as good as I hoped.

Next Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindewald!

[scarynikki12]

Nutcracker had a lot of potential but they were so focused on their Twist that they missed it.  They should have kept it simple and gone with

Spoiler

the four realms falling apart due to Marie's absence.  Sugarplum shows Clara that the Nutcracker Land moves much faster than our Earth.  Clara's adventure lasts for a few days and that equals only a few hours on our Earth.  Let's keep it simple and say that one hour equals one day.  Marie had been dead for almost a year, and there are over 8700 hours in an Earth year, which means that Nutcracker Land had gone without her for more than twenty of their years.  When Sugarplum lets out her anger and yells at Clara that they'd been abandoned, that's when I realized this is what the story should have been.  The four realms turning on each other in the wake of what they believe to be abandonment by their queen.  Clara showing up would give them both hope for reunification and an outlet for their feelings.  You wouldn't need a bad guy at all, just characters dealing with their emotions.  And the music would work well with all those feelings.  The big resolution could be Clara leaving and appointing Philip the Nutcracker to a Prime Minister type role so that the four realms would have a someone permanently there to be in charge.  I would also have each of the realms shown to be falling apart when Clara first arrives so that we can see them, under Philip the Nutcracker's leadership, start to rebuild as visual proof that things will get better and be okay again. 

[Camera One]

I am watching "The Librarians" and I watched the first episode of the second season.

In this episode, there were fictional villains who came to life (from the words of a book which became an empty book).  Another villain wanted to change the "ending" in their books but needed certain objects from their story to make it happen, so the heroes had to figure that out.  But you couldn't kill these fictional characters in any way if that wasn't how they died in their book (eg. if you stabbed someone who didn't die that way in their story, the character didn't die).  That was rather contradictory (villains could change their ending but heroes couldn't), but I was wondering if "Once" could have done something similar in a half-season about novel characters (maybe the Land of Untold Stories arc in 6A).  That would have forced the story to actually use what happened in the source material.  

The final Harry Potter movie was on TV the other night, so I had it in the background while doing work.  Curse "Once"... I can't even watch Harry Potter without thinking of Emma having to resign herself to death, or Snape's sad backstory making his harsh treatment of Harry alright.  But still, in Harry Potter, both of those elements worked better than on "Once".  I like that the hero doing the right thing (eg. Harry saving Draco in the fire) was actually rewarded when he could tell Draco's mother that her son was still alive and she didn't tell Voldemort that Harry wasn't dead.  What Dumbledore did was rather unethical (since he knew all along that Harry would need to "die" to defeat Voldemort), but that made a wise sage character more complex.  That was how they should have approached Blue and the fairies, who would be able to see the "bigger picture" and make the harder decisions.  

[Spartan Girl]

On November 6, 2018 at 7:35 PM, Writing Wrongs said:

I saw it. Um..the visuals were nice. But yeah, it wasn't as good as I hoped.

Next Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindewald!

Thanks for posting about the Nutcracker movie. I'd been on the fence about it because of Morgan Freeman. Reading everyone's thoughts just confirmed that I'll wait for it to be on cable. 

I am excited about Fantastic Beasts though. Critics are complaining that there's "too much story" for the non Potterheads to to keep up with. Well, why bother watching this one without seeing the the first movie?! Or any of the series for that matter?! Lousy Muggles...

[Camera One]

The fun of fantasy is being able to dive deeper into the world.  So I totally agree that they shouldn't write to newbies.  At its heart, it's a fantasy adventure, so the basic goal of the story should make it easy enough to follow even without recognizing the Easter Eggs.  

I just watched the second episode of Season 2 of "The Librarians", which was a continuation of the fictional characters come to life.  Unlike 6A, the heroes actually use knowledge from the books to defeat/neutralize the threats since they "don't have free will and are bound by the nature of their story".  For example, finding a mirror to get rid of the Queen of Hearts from "Alice in Wonderland" and getting to the root of Frankenstein's monster's destructive behavior.  There was a good joke about not being able to use knowledge of the movie to defeat.   Compared to "Once" where villains are defeated due to randomness and deux ex machinas that have nothing to do with the source material most of the time.

But one thing that struck me was that "Once" always managed to make the fictional characters feel real and human, not overly goofy despite having some fun with it.  On "The Librarians", everything was just so goofy.  Which fits that show, but what "Once" had was also unique and more rare than the goofy angle.  This is where the usual lost potential of despair hits me.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Camera One

[daxx]

11 hours ago, Camera One said:

This is where the usual lost potential of despair hits me.

This colors my entire rewatch. The lost potential, things they wrote and didn’t even see. It irks and saddens me.

[KAOS Agent]

I was watching some random YouTube videos yesterday and came across this one. About a minute and a half in, Margaret Hamilton tries to get the audience to understand the Wicked Witch of the West. Keep in mind that this was 1975. She wasn't trying to justify anything or make the witch's actions any less reprehensible, but she wanted the kids to see her a little differently. Kind of put themselves in her shoes to understand her motives. The main purpose of this appearance was to get kids to not be so terrified of the Wicked Witch, which is why they make a big deal of it being pretend and showing the costume, but I think it's hilarious that long before Wicked, Margaret Hamilton was trying to get people to see the witch outside of a one dimensional villain. It's not a new concept at all.

[Camera One]

I really liked that Mr. Rogers interview.  

I was watching the trailer to Dumbo.  I was wondering how they would do a "talking animals" story and I guess it's smart they're building the story around people.  It's too bad A&E didn't adapt many of the animal-centric stories like "Dumbo".   I would have loved to learn how The Ringleader's family was trampled by Evil Elephants and that was why he was so mean to Dumbo.

[Camera One]

I borrowed "Christopher Robin" so in preparation, I just watched the 2011 "Winnie the Pooh" movie.  I've never watched the animated movies before, though for some reason I know all the characters.  I like the songs in the 2011 one, but the Pooh stories are for extremely young children, so it was difficult for me to concentrate.  Nevertheless, I watched it all the way through (while doing something else) but I liked the animation style and the score.

I'm going to watch the 1977 one too before the live-action movie.

Edited November 18, 2018 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

I keep forgetting to mention this, but I read a book recently that did the "all the fairy tale characters live in adjacent kingdoms and interact" thing that this show does, just without the modern world part, and it did so in some interesting ways, where they were adjacent kingdoms, and it worked in some of the fairy folklore to explain where the magic comes from and why there were also kingdoms without magic. The Evil Queen from the Snow White story is the villain, just as in the show, but she's not meant to be sympathetic. The book is The Woodcutter by Kate Danley, and I'm not entirely sure I'd recommend it because I wasn't crazy about the actual writing, but the worldbuilding is really interesting because it gets into the source of magic and why these tales are playing out, the way I wish the show had ever bothered to do. It's written like a fairy tale, so the characters are pretty thin and basically archetypes. I kept wanting more from it. If you've got Kindle Unlimited, it's on that and worth a look, but I wouldn't suggest anyone go out and buy it. I read it when it was part of the Prime lending library, but it seems to be gone from that now. I don't think it was something written in response to this show because the copyright date is too early for the author to have seen the show, written a book, and got it published unless she started writing soon after the premiere and wrote and published it quickly, and even then, it was published before it became really clear that the worldbuilding on the show was going to be nonexistent, so I doubt it was a case of someone creating their own worldbuilding for the show and then scratching off the serial numbers and putting in some original characters.

[Camera One]

That sounds like an interesting concept.  I couldn't find the book in the catalogue of my nearby libraries, though.  

I finished watching the original 1977 "Winnie the Pooh" animated movie, and they did a good job replicating the same style and format in the 2011 one.  I did laugh when the narrator said Winnie the Pooh lived in the Enchanted Forest.

I can totally imagine our "Once Upon a Time" heroes travelling to Hundred Acre Wood looking for the Last Magical Hunny Pot™.  When Emma and Snowing defeat the Backson or the Woozles, they become guests of honor at a Hero Party.  Maybe the villain can be subdued if you pin Eeyore's tail on him/her. 

Or there could be a flashback where Emma the budding Bailbondsperson is looking for a Mr. Sanders.  She enters his apartment and sees creepy looking stuffed animals and a balloon.  At the end of the episode, we find out that Mr. Sanders was actually a grown-up Christopher Robin trying to get back to Hundred Acre Wood.

Edited November 19, 2018 by Camera One

[Camera One]

If anyone is trying to choose between the 79 new Christmas movies airing for the first time this season, there is a movie with Jessy Schram (Cinderella) and another with Rose McIver (Tinkerbelle).  And another with a possible Prince from the Nutcracker story.  

[Camera One]

On 8/7/2018 at 7:38 PM, Shanna Marie said:

I saw Christopher Robin today and really loved it. Ewan McGregor certainly has a knack for playing the straight man in stuff like this, where he's all-in with the premise and utterly sincere even though most of his scenes are with a stuffed bear. I don't think Disney's too clear on who the audience is, though. All the previews before the movie were for children's movies, and most weren't even the sort that adults would also like. But I don't think this is a kid's movie at all. A kid might find Pooh and the other animals funny, but the movie's really about being an adult. It's told from the adult perspective. I'm not sure a kid would even get it, and might find the adult angst boring.

 

On 8/7/2018 at 7:14 PM, Spartan Girl said:

Anyway, I saw Christopher Robin tonight and it was very cute. The best scenes were of Pooh and the gang reacting to the city of London. I couldn't help thinking of OUAT doing something similar, but I doubt it would have been done so well. Thank God they never got their hands on Pooh...

I read some negative reviews prior to this, so I was surprised I really liked "Christopher Robin".  I guess our tastes do intersect here, LOL.   Most movies with talking animals are beyond horrible, but somehow, this movie made it work.  There were some slapstick moments, but most of the film was relatively quiet and understated, with Winnie the Pooh saying simplistic things which actually made the adult Christopher Robin think.  I also loved Winnie the Pooh's funny reactions to the "modern" world, and also ordinary people's reactions to a talking stuffed animal.  I liked that Hundred Acre Wood was a real yet innocent place and so were these characters, and not just figments of Christopher Robin's imagination.  It's so different from the usual approach where a character goes back to Oz, or Wonderland, where it has become twisted, scary and violent.  I found the climax reasonably satisfying as well.  It was a feel-good movie that actually did its job, I think.

For once, I felt I was rewarded by doing actual research and seeing both the 1977 movie and the 2011 movie before this newer film.  There were a lot of call-outs from the previous films, from more obvious ones like the red balloon, getting stuck in a small space, and the woozles and the hefflelumps, to falling into the pit they dug in the 2011 movie, Owl's fallen house and an animal headed for the waterfall.  I felt that they showed enough of the iconic places in the Hundred Acres Wood from Pooh's house to his thotful spot, and the locations did look beautiful and feel magical.  

Edited November 18, 2018 by Camera One

[Guest]

On 11/18/2018 at 1:57 AM, Camera One said:

If anyone is trying to choose between the 79 new Christmas movies airing for the first time this season, there is a movie with Jessy Schram (Cinderella) and another with Rose McIver (Tinkerbelle).  And another with a possible Prince from the Nutcracker story.  

Once I got over the horror of there being 79 new Christmas movies airing I actually read this article.

Actually, I read only the "contains" section in solidarity with the poor sap that realized that there was no way anyone was reading all those official summaries and took the bullet of reading / watching enough to summarize in two to four phrases what was going on.  I kind of like the random "Snake Plissken as Santa", "plush suit, murder" , "no Lindsay Lohan", "One Tree Hill reunion" which just screams please, its too much, make it stop.

Made me wonder how OUAT would come across summarized in a couple of phrases per episode.

Anyway there is also a Christmas movie version of Snow White in that list.

[Shanna Marie]

And yay, the Christmas movie version of Snow White is on ION, so I can watch it even though I don't have cable this year. It sounds deliciously ridiculous.

I lost count of how many Pride and Prejudice retellings they had this year.

[Camera One]

My eyes began to glaze after five, so I totally missed the Snow White Christmas one.  Here is the synopsis:

Quote

A Snow White Christmas (Dec. 9, 9 p.m. ET/PT on ION Television

STARS: Carolyn Hennesy, Michelle Randolph, Liam McNeill, Colt Prattes, Richard Barnes

CONTAINS: Inheritance in jeopardy, wicked step mom, amnesia, the seven dwarfs reimagined as the Holy Jollies

OFFICIAL SYNOPSIS: “When Blanca Snow is faced with spending Christmas with her dastardly stepmother, Victoria, she attempts to fulfill her late father’s wishes and create new memories as a family. However, Victoria plots to edge Blanca out of her father’s inheritance and keep the money and his mansion, for herself. She plans to renovate the house by hiring a talented designer, Lucas Prince, but when he falls in love with Blanca, Victoria is jealous and outraged. With the help of her assistant, Zane, Victoria has Blanca hypnotized, so she will forget everyone and everything about her father’s will. When Blanca wakes up in a quaint motor lodge out of town with severe amnesia, she receives the help of seven quirky friends, the Holly Jollies, to help her figure out her life. While attempting to regain her memory, she finds herself the object of affection to both house painter Hunter, and Lucas Prince. But, who can she trust? And will she finally remember her past, and stop Victoria from stealing everything her father built?”

Just seeing the name "Victoria" is giving me hives.

[Camera One]

Disney released the teaser trailer for the live-action "The Lion King".
It seemed note-for-note the opening sequence of the animated movie, so I question the point of re-making this.  

I just regret that A&E didn't get their claws into adapting this for "Once".  I thought this would be a good half-season arc to do a live-action version with Scar as the main villain.  I'm pretty sure Simba is a Savior, like his father before him.  Of course Simba used the shears when he left for Hakuna Matata Land.   Maybe Regina could have worked with Scar, who was Leopold's brother and felt he was the rightful King.  That would have been a great arc for Season 9B.  

Edited November 23, 2018 by Camera One

[daxx]

@Camera One it’s starting to concern me how deeply you have gotten into A&E’s headspace. 😂 

[tennisgurl]

I dont want to give too much away, but Wreck It Ralph Breaks the Internet finally gave us the Disney princess team up that we all wanted on Once, but never really got! 

You know, I was watching Mulan on television the other day, and I think something that bothers me about how Once did its Disney stories, is that, for a show supposedly all about magic and such, the show basically removes all of the magical elements from the stories, and all of the fun, comic relief characters, and the cute sidekicks, and everything else that didnt just make the Disney movies weirdly historically inaccurate period pieces. So when we meet Mulan, we dont get ghost ancestors, Mushu the dragon guardian, the cricket, we dont get the flying carpet (yeah we get one, but its a transportation device, not a character), Abu or any of the other animals, or the Genie when we meet Aladdin and Jasmine, no enchanted objects for Belle, etc. I get that there are budgetary constraints, but watching the original movies, the magical/animal characters add a lot of charm and magic to the stories, and without them, it just doesent feel like a Disney fairytale. It also means that the stories are more generic, because, even if you found the magic comic relief characters annoying, they at least made the stories memorable, and gave them personality. Without them, its just random stories in a kind of medieval land, with a few cosmetic differences between them.  

[profdanglais]

I'd have loved to see more of Snow with birds or other woodland creatures. TBH, I suspect the writers just forgot about that aspect of her after season 1.

[KingOfHearts]

10 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

I dont want to give too much away, but Wreck It Ralph Breaks the Internet finally gave us the Disney princess team up that we all wanted on Once, but never really got! 

The Disney princesses were easily the best part of the movie. The writers for the film had a clearer picture of the characters than A&E did.

It's a shame because I love the original Wreck-it Ralph, but thought the sequel was pretty bland. It didn't have that much of a plot. (Though it had a few cool moments and and ideas.) 

Edited November 24, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[Shanna Marie]

I was watching this week's Legends of Tomorrow on my DVR, and there are several things that struck me in contrast to Once.

One is that they have totally embraced the ridiculousness of their cast of characters and their situation. The first season wasn't so great, and I think it was because they were trying to take it too seriously, but once they realized that the premise of their show was rather ridiculous, they fully embraced it. I think the Once writers were too busy trying to be "master storytellers" and went in the exact opposite direction of the fun they could have had. When you describe the plots, it sounds just as wacky as any Legends storyline, but the episodes aren't nearly as much fun. I mean, really, how do you take a storyline like "the Wicked Witch of the West disguises herself as Maid Marian so she can steal Robin Hood from her half sister, the Evil Queen" seriously?

Another is the way they handle a large ensemble cast. They're good about mixing it up and putting the characters in different combinations rather than putting the characters in silos. But they're also good about letting characters come and go. Some of it is about actor availability, with actors wanting to leave due to scheduling issues, but they also are willing to get rid of characters who've run their course instead of keeping them around just because they like the actor/character. Then there's the case in which the character had run her course and it was stretching credibility for her to stick around, but the actress wasn't ready to leave, so they used the show's supernatural premise to create another character for that same actress to play. I can't help but think how different Once would have been if they'd had more of a revolving door. Rumple would have been a better character if he'd been permanently dead after 3A. Regina should have been either vanquished and gone or should have gone out in a blaze of glory -- maybe should have died stopping the failsafe. Then we wouldn't have had the weirdness of all her victims becoming her friends without her so much as apologizing. On the other hand, Neal should have stuck around a little longer and actually resolved things before maybe returning to the Land Without Magic except for the occasional weekend with Henry. There was no reason to bring Zelena back. She was entertaining but the character never really served a story purpose after her arc. If they liked the actress, they should have come up with some other role for her to play -- some magical villain shapeshifted into Zelena and got stuck or it turned out Cora had twins and there's a good twin out there. They should have either just kept Robin around and given him something to do, or they should have let him stay in the World Without Magic with Marian and written him out for good rather than writing him out and then bringing him back just to kill him.

And in this most recent episode, a reforming villain who'd done a good deed that helped the team turned herself in to the authorities to accept the consequences of her evil. That's a step this show skipped entirely. It seems like something that drama queen, Captain Guilt Complex, would have done -- say, upon his return from Neverland he reported to the jail, since he'd escaped custody before. That would have fit with him telling Neal he was staying out of his way, but then it would have given him the chance to flirt with Emma from his cell while she was in the office, until she ended up releasing him because they needed his help. They should have at least addressed his Storybrooke crimes, but then I guess it would be hard to hold him on attempted murder for shooting Belle when there was no evidence or for attempted murder of Rumple without also charging Rumple with beating Hook, murdering Milah, or cutting off Hook's hand (although the last two weren't Storybrooke crimes, they were Hook's motive, and it doesn't seem fair to prosecute someone for trying to get justice for a crime when the original crime isn't being prosecuted). I can't imagine Regina turning herself in to face the music, probably because she was never actually really redeemed. If she was as good as they tried to act like she was, she should have turned herself in for murdering Graham and Kurt. Zelena got locked up, but not by her choice.

[Camera One]

1 hour ago, Shanna Marie said:

I mean, really, how do you take a storyline like "the Wicked Witch of the West disguises herself as Maid Marian so she can steal Robin Hood from her half sister, the Evil Queen" seriously?

I think "Once" took a storyline like that *too* seriously.  While I have expressed that I like "Once" because it takes fairy tale characters more seriously than other shows (even moreso than "Grimm"), the storylines are often melodramatic soap opera which sapped the fun out of the premise.  The Wicked Witch murdering Maid Marian and sleeping with Robin Hood didn't bring out the fun in the situation at all.

On 11/23/2018 at 8:55 AM, tennisgurl said:

Without them, its just random stories in a kind of medieval land, with a few cosmetic differences between them.  

That really was what a lot of these stories on "Once" turned out to be.  

I can see why the animal/cartoonish sidekicks were removed, but they also removed a lot of the humanizing and more complex aspects from Disney movies (it seems strange when Disney moves are more complex than a live-action).  Belle's relationship with her father was an important aspect of the animated movie, but they made Maurice into a total jerk and Belle hardly bothered to mend her relationship with him.  Jasmine's relationship with her father, Aladdin growing up as an orphan, Ariel's relationship with her father and sisters, Aurora's parents missing out on her childhood, Mulan's relationship with her father... all of these potential avenues of exploration were completely ignored.  Ironically, Merida was one character who was allowed to interact with her father, which was actually nice.  Other than that, it was "Frozen" which actually dug into some of the relationships from the animated movie that didn't play out, such as Elsa's mixed feelings about her parents, and Anna's feelings about being ignored all those years by Elsa.

Edited November 24, 2018 by Camera One

[KAOS Agent]

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

Other than that, it was "Frozen" which actually dug into some of the relationships from the animated movie that didn't play out, such as Elsa's mixed feelings about her parents, and Anna's feelings about being ignored all those years by Elsa.

This story can't even be truly attributed to the Once writers since the Frozen stuff was so heavily supervised by Disney. While I disliked Anna's tour of the Enchanted Forest, the Frozen storyline was enjoyable to me. It was coherent, meaningful and featured some level of realistic feelings and actions from the Frozen characters. It may not have been everyone's cup of tea, but the Frozen part of the 4A arc was definitely one of the best written of the entire show. 

[Camera One]

30 minutes ago, KAOS Agent said:

This story can't even be truly attributed to the Once writers since the Frozen stuff was so heavily supervised by Disney. 

This arc was an example where the Writers:

1) Did their due diligence watching the original Disney movie very carefully, taking notes on the possible character-driven storylines they could still do with the characters from that movie

2) Then, link these thematically with what the series characters (eg. Emma) might be going through emotionally or parallels which were organic to the story

3) And incorporate elements of the original source material (eg. The Snow Queen, and the whole "shattered sight" Curse which affected Kai)

I don't know if it showed that A&E and the Writing Room was capable was doing this with Disney supervision, or if some of the ideas were from outside advisors, or what.

But these steps should have been required for EVERY fairy tale or folktale or fictional story they adapted, from multi-episode arcs like "Aladdin" or "Sleeping Beauty", to single one-offs like "The Count of Monte Cristo".  

Edited November 25, 2018 by Camera One

[Spartan Girl]

3 hours ago, Camera One said:

Elsa's mixed feelings about her parents, and Anna's feelings about being ignored all those years by Elsa.

Yes, that was one of the few things the show actually did well, especially calling out their parents for being one big epic fail of parenthood. Although the small petty part of me wishes that instead of forgiving them Anna and Elsa just said "screw them, we've got each other."

I really hate how Disney Elsa continued to blame herself for their crappy childhoods in that Frozen Christmas special. I would dearly love for her to just admit flat-out: "My parents were idiot bigots that were afraid of me and kept us locked up." Maybe in the sequel?

[tennisgurl]

I was watching the new season of *Mystery Science Theater 3000, and at one point during goofy 70s science fiction movie The Day Time Ended, the gang asked the movie to stop throwing concepts at them, like a tiny alien, a magic pyramid, a flying saucer, one right after the other with little to no explanation, and actually start to tell a story. Than this song comes on soon after, and I cant help but think of another certain something that throws tons of cool concepts at the wall to see what sticks, instead of actually telling a coherent story...

 

*The "plot" of the show is a guy and his robot pals watching bad movies in outer space, while making fun of them. Its great*

[Spartan Girl]

Tom Hanks is in talks to be Geppetto in Disney's live action Pinocchio.

You know the original non-Disney versions of Pinocchio aren't as likable. Pinocchio really starts off as kind of a bad boy, whereas the Disney version is more naive and gullible, which is understandable since he literally is only a few days old. I wonder how that's going to translate in the new version.

[Camera One]

I know we A&E diehard fans have been on the edge of our seats waiting for news on "Amazing Stories".  Finally, there is an article with some small tidbits!

I only got a few things out of this quote:

Quote

The drama is an anthology that Apple describes as something that transports audiences to worlds of wonder through the lens of today's most imaginative filmmakers, directors and writers. 

1. Apple thinks A&E counts as among "today's most imaginative".

2. "Worlds of wonder".  Hmm... is that like a "realm of story"?  

3. Let's be as vague as possible because we don't know what the hell this is.

[KingOfHearts]

I can't wait to see what's next from the master storytellers.

[tennisgurl]

Maybe one of those stories is set in the dystopian nightmare that is the post series world ruled by God Empress Regina?

[Camera One]

I was reading this article which predicted that Disney is going to make lots of money in 2019.  

Think of all the potential stories which could have filled a Season 9 of "Once Upon a Time":
- Toy Story 4
- Aladdin (live action)
- Dumbo (live action)
- The Lion King (live action)
- Frozen 2
- Star Wars Episode IX

Plus Artemis Fowl and Marvel movies

[CCTC]

On 12/9/2018 at 12:57 PM, Camera One said:

I was reading this article which predicted that Disney is going to make lots of money in 2019.  

Think of all the potential stories which could have filled a Season 9 of "Once Upon a Time":
- Toy Story 4
- Aladdin (live action)
- Dumbo (live action)
- The Lion King (live action)
- Frozen 2
- Star Wars Episode IX

Plus Artemis Fowl and Marvel movies

I am sure some of those movies will be very good, but Disney does not really seem to be big on new ideas these days.  It is almost all live action remakes of a classic films or sequels.  I would add Mary Poppins 2 - the Revenge of the Bird Lady (OK- that might not be the plot) to that list.

[KingOfHearts]

I'm not totally against the sequels/remake craze, but lately those movies haven't been good for me. I don't particularly care for any of the remakes (I haven't seen Cinderella) and the sequels have been too safe with needless plots. The "why can't Hollywood do anything original!" bandwagon is easy to get on, but I'm not quite there yet. There's potential to draw out of these various franchises, but Disney would rather do glorified re-releases by copycatting their own material. It's usually a regurgitated, watered-down mess - but it looks pretty and (supposedly) gives you those nostalgic feelings.

Edited December 10, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[Shanna Marie]

I really liked the Disney live-action Cinderella. It really was a different retelling of the same fairy tale rather than a live-action remake of the cartoon. They did use some little things like Lucifer and Gus-Gus (though Gus-Gus was just a mouse and didn't talk or sew), and the stepfamily had the same names, but otherwise the characters were all different. Cinderella's motivation was different. We saw the relationship between the Prince and his father. Cinderella and the Prince's interactions were very different.

I liked the Beauty and the Beast live action, but it didn't really add anything to the story. It was just a live-action version of the cartoon, and there wasn't much point to it. I really don't get remaking the Lion King, since it's just going from hand-drawn animation to "realistic" CGI, so it's still animated.

I guess I'm up for a live-action "remake" if they're going back to the fairy tale and doing a new version, with maybe a few touches calling back to the cartoon, but I don't see much point in doing an actual live-action remake of the cartoon. I would actually like to see Sleeping Beauty get done like they did Cinderella -- take the basic story and flesh it out with some good special effects.

[Camera One]

I didn't dislike the live-action Cinderella, but looking back, it left very little impression on me.  I still found the animated Cinderella much more likeable and relatable.  The live-action Lady Tremaine and Fairy Godmother were utterly forgettable, and they were two of the showstoppers of the original. 

The live-action "Beauty and the Beast" was hit and miss.  It was pretty much a replay of the original except weaker.  

I suppose I still find those preferable to something like "Maleficent", a forced attempt to give a villain a sob story and going way overboard in the process.  

I would like to see some crossovers.  Maybe the Fairy Godmother from "Cinderella" was the spiteful fairy who cursed the Beast.  Maybe she learns to regret punishing innocent castle staff and eventually, she grows to become the more benevolent Cinder's fairy godmother.   

[Souris]

On 12/10/2018 at 5:48 PM, Shanna Marie said:

I really liked the Disney live-action Cinderella. It really was a different retelling of the same fairy tale rather than a live-action remake of the cartoon. They did use some little things like Lucifer and Gus-Gus (though Gus-Gus was just a mouse and didn't talk or sew), and the stepfamily had the same names, but otherwise the characters were all different. Cinderella's motivation was different. We saw the relationship between the Prince and his father. Cinderella and the Prince's interactions were very different.

I really, really liked the live-action Cinderella, too. Cinderella was kind and good, but had a backbone. It actually fleshed out the prince some. Their relationship was based on more than one dance (not much more, but at least something more). It explained why the Evil Stepmother was the way she was without excusing (!!!) her behavior at all. I thought it made an effort to put some emotional heft and realism behind the fairy tale, while still hitting all the major points.

A lot of touches that Once could've learned from. Ahem.

I suppose I still find those preferable to something like "Maleficent", a forced attempt to give a villain a sob story and going way overboard in the process.

God, I DESPISED that movie and its Once-level villain-aggrandizing, and it ticks me off they're making a sequel. 

Edited December 12, 2018 by Souris

[Shanna Marie]

4 minutes ago, Souris said:

Their relationship was based on more than one dance (not much more, but at least something more).

They had two whole conversations! And I get the impression the one at the ball was long, since it lasted until midnight (though that depends on when the ball started).

That's why I'd like to see Sleeping Beauty get that treatment (without the villain sob story). Like, maybe Philip's been meeting up with Aurora in the woods over time and they've become friends rather than it just being that one dance in the woods. Get more into what the parents experience not getting to watch their daughter grow up, what it's like for Aurora, thinking she's an orphan (come to think of it, her story is similar to Emma's, except at least Aurora grew up having her "aunts" so she wasn't totally alone, just isolated from anything resembling peers until Philip showed up, and she was sent away to save her, not to save them).