OUAT vs. Other Fairy Tales: Compare & Contrast

[daxx]

I’m binge watching Lucifer and getting the urge to discuss it online. Which I haven’t had with any show since Once. I want to get caught up first, so a couple more weeks I think. So far, up to near the end of season 3 I’m enjoying it and not seeing a lot of issues. But binge watching is dramatically different from watching live. Far less time to think about each episode and no chance at all to speculate or have expectations to be fulfilled or to be disappointed.

[Melgaypet]

4 hours ago, daxx said:

I’m binge watching Lucifer and getting the urge to discuss it online. Which I haven’t had with any show since Once.

It's Agents of SHIELD that I've been binging. I'm in season 4 now. Granted, they're very different shows, but also not? I mean, they're both action-adventure. They're both drawing on deeper mythologies - fairytales and Marvel comics. They both have generally excellent casts. They both try to have badass women heroes. And they're both flawed, though in different ways. AoS seems to be improving as it goes after a deeply boring beginning (which is why I bailed out when it was first on), while OUAT started off strong and got progressively by the season.

One big contrast to OUAT that I've noticed is with the treatment of the series regular villain, as opposed to Regina or Rumpy. This character seems to be a favorite with the writers and kept around for longer that he should have been (IMO) but the way this was done was wildly different. Once this character's villainy is revealed, the other characters don't give him an inch. They don't buy into his justifications or excuses, they don't feel sorry for him or flog themselves or shrug his actions off, they always, always hate him. In fact:

Spoiler

Two different characters shoot him, a third puts several nails into his foot with a nailgun and beats him up, a few others make very serious attempts to hunt him down and kill him. The lead character eventually straight-up murders him (which causes more problems, true).

Edited May 20, 2019 by Melgaypet

[Camera One]

So "Games of Thrones" is over.  I wonder if A&E are thinking how everyone loved their series finale, LOL.

[Shanna Marie]

On 5/20/2019 at 2:28 PM, Camera One said:

So "Games of Thrones" is over.  I wonder if A&E are thinking how everyone loved their series finale, LOL.

I actually liked the Game of Thrones finale. The previous two episodes were kind of a problem, and while one of the outcomes that really seems to have upset people is something I've seen coming a long time, I think the writers got off-course in the past few seasons then suddenly had to reverse. But the actual outcome works for me. It feels more or less right (with some exceptions). Unlike the Once finale, where it was kind of okay up to the end, and then it went straight off the deep end into "what the hell?" with the coda that smashed all the fairy tale worlds together int Storybrooke, had Wish Henry, who had never known Regina as a mother and only knew her as the person who murdered his whole family, apparently having bonded with Regina as his new mom, and then Regina elected Queen of the Universe, with Hook and Emma showing up for her coronation with their baby who wasn't conceived until at least a decade later, but whatever since all this is going to entirely blow up the timeline anyway. If you're grading on that scale, then the Game of Thrones ending is totally logical and sane.

[tennisgurl]

On 5/20/2019 at 1:28 PM, Camera One said:

So "Games of Thrones" is over.  I wonder if A&E are thinking how everyone loved their series finale, LOL.

Well considering no one suddenly announced that Cersei was suddenly the best hero ever and she was elected eternal queen of the multiverse, I still prefer the GOT ending over this one 😉 

[daxx]

I’m watching Lucifer. Just finished season 4.

I’m very impressed with the writing.

one thing Ouat did incredibly poorly,...

Spoiler

They did a fantastic job with the triangle storyline. Chloe and Eve treated each other well and were mature and respectful. I think they both ended up really admiring the other. Which is so incredibly rare in media.

[Shanna Marie]

19 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

Well considering no one suddenly announced that Cersei was suddenly the best hero ever and she was elected eternal queen of the multiverse, I still prefer the GOT ending over this one

You know, there are a lot of parallels between Regina and Cersei, given that both of them were only queens because they were married to kings, they arranged the deaths of their husbands, and then they took the throne for themselves. Both also went kind of nuts and did horrible things because they felt threatened that the people loved someone else more. So, to get the OUAT ending, GOT would have had to have Cersei elected queen of the universe.

[Camera One]

Is anyone going to see "Aladdin" this weekend?  It seems to be getting lukewarm reviews from critics... 59% on Rotten Tomatoes and 54% on Metacritic.  It would still be popular with audiences, though.  I do want to watch it, but I wish I had someone near me who actually enjoys Disney movies.

[Spartan Girl]

On May 23, 2019 at 2:28 AM, tennisgurl said:

Well considering no one suddenly announced that Cersei was suddenly the best hero ever and she was elected eternal queen of the multiverse, I still prefer the GOT ending over this one 😉 

True, but the show still gave Cersei an unearned sympathetic romantic ending and turned one of the heroes into the bad guy at the last second, so it's still OUAT territory.

6 hours ago, Camera One said:

Is anyone going to see "Aladdin" this weekend?  It seems to be getting lukewarm reviews from critics... 59% on Rotten Tomatoes and 54% on Metacritic.  It would still be popular with audiences, though.  I do want to watch it, but I wish I had someone near me who actually enjoys Disney movies.

People have been saying it's better than they thought it would be. I'm seeing it this weekend sometime. Hope you can get someone to go with you!

[Camera One]

I was reading this article speculating on the origin of the story of "Aladdin".  As I read that, I was thinking how "Once" *could* have played with the idea of the "author" in many different ways.  They never addressed the concept of where "our world" gained knowledge of these fairy tales.  

[Shanna Marie]

On 5/24/2019 at 6:23 AM, Spartan Girl said:

True, but the show still gave Cersei an unearned sympathetic romantic ending and turned one of the heroes into the bad guy at the last second, so it's still OUAT territory.

I agree on the unearned sympathetic romantic ending, but I never saw that "hero" as a hero, so I'd been expecting the turn into a villain all along. I don't trust anyone who goes on about their own destiny any more than I trust someone who talks about wanting to be a hero. It's got tinges of megalomania. I thought it was a rather clever bit of writing that we only really saw her squared off against obvious villains, so we cheered some actions that were actually atrocities, that would have been villainous behavior against more sympathetic opponents. I think the problem was that once the TV series went past the books and they were writing rather than adapting, the TV writers didn't quite get what was being set up and went off closer into pure hero land, then when they found out what the outcome was supposed to be, it took a rapid veer back. But anyone who talks a lot about creating a perfect world and intends to do it by force with the help of a massive army is not a hero to me, so I figured she'd only look like a hero until she came up against the actual good guys.

[KAOS Agent]

I think Game of Thrones did a decent job at taking some hits at what are often perceived to be noble causes or excuses/ justifications for atrocities. There was a conversation about Cersei late in the series where they were talking about how she might be "better" now because she would have a child to think about again and Jaime responded that every horrible thing she's ever done was for her children. A child just gives her more reason to act out her brand of crazy, so it's not at all a good idea to let her continue now. 

Compare that with Rumpel throughout much of Once's run. The show continually painted Rumpel as sympathetic because he was doing things for his child. No concern over the fact that he murdered Milah (twice!) and dumped her in the River of Lost Souls or turned a man into a snail and crushed him for accidentally injuring his son or arranged events so that an entire realm was cursed and children like Emma and Pinocchio were left orphaned just so he could find his son. I could go on, but you get the point. GoT had the right idea in knocking down the notion that doing it for a child does not mean you should get some sort of pass for committing horrible acts. I don't see Game of Thrones playing Regina's "no regrets" speech as the grand heroic moment that Once did.

[Camera One]

"Once" also used that excuse for Regina too.  They imply that because Regina loved Henry, it means she can't be that bad.  Then, we were supposed to be glad that she got Henry to fill the void in her life.

[Camera One]

"Once" did show that children were no excuse for behavior though. For example, Emma was very bad for killing Cruella.  Just because she had a gun to Henry's throat didn't give Emma a free pass.  Likewise, "Once" explored how Snowing's morally corrupt behavior in separating a mother from her baby and using the baby as a vessel of darkness impacted the life of the innocent Lily in so many ways, providing a fascinating character study over two episodes.

Edited May 26, 2019 by Camera One

[Melgaypet]

33 minutes ago, Camera One said:

For example, Emma was very bad for killing Cruella.  Just because she had a gun to Henry's throat didn't give Emma a free pass.

Oh, man, can you imagine if Regina had been the one in that scenario? Everyone would have fallen over themselves assuring her that she had no choice and was a hero for saving Henry and killing Cruella definitely wasn't backsliding and then they'd have thrown her a party.

[KingOfHearts]

10 hours ago, Melgaypet said:

Oh, man, can you imagine if Regina had been the one in that scenario? Everyone would have fallen over themselves assuring her that she had no choice and was a hero for saving Henry and killing Cruella definitely wasn't backsliding and then they'd have thrown her a party.

Initially, I thought the exception to being convicted of murder was being a villain, but it's actually just being Regina or Rumple. When Hook, Zelena, or any of the Big Bads do something wrong, it's a big deal. They're dirty killers. When R&R do it? They most they get is a slap on the wrist, much like toddlers do when drawing on the walls. But when it's a bad person, like Cruella, they're celebrated. Um... okay?? What religion or moral system is this show following? If its something inconsistent and screwed up, maybe it should he framed that way? You'd think someone from the real world like Emma would call BS. She's a bailbondswoman for Pete's sake. She should know murderers go to jail.

Edited May 26, 2019 by KingOfHearts

[Spartan Girl]

I saw Aladdin and it was pretty good. The trailers didn't do Mena Massoud and Naomi Scott justice, they were great as Aladdin and Jasmine. Their singing was great, especially Naomi, and they had great chemistry. They also way more depth than OUAT ever gave them: Jasmine got to be a politically ambitious badass and Aladdin got to explore his insecurities. Will Smith did great as Genie, he didn't try to copy Robin Wiliams and he clearly had a ball.

[daxx]

I’ve been spending some time perusing the Lucifer forum. Mainly in season 4 the most recent season on Netflix.

I see nothing but high praise in the episode threads.

It’s actually fascinating that the show has the same show runners but just moving to Netflix from network made a world of difference in the show. It floundered in season 3 and lost itself a bit.

The 10 episode arc opposed to a 22 episode season is part of it I’m sure. It makes me wonder how much meddling networks actually do in shows.

[Camera One]

I watched "Ralph Breaks the Internet".  Well, I watched the first hour and 10 minutes last night, and the remaining 40 minutes tonight.  

I thought the first half of the movie was pretty clever with the depiction of the internet world.  I liked the little versions of the internet users travelling around, throwing hearts to viral videos.  The search bar guy was funny.  I wonder how much various companies like Google, Pinterest, etc. paid to be featured.  

I get what the Writers were trying to do with their "lesson" about friendship, but I thought Ralph went way overboard infecting the game with a virus, and I didn't sympathesize with Velellope wanting to stay in the Slaughter Race game either.  That's why I sort of lost interest after they raised enough money for the steering wheel and left the rest for tonight.

I agree with the above comments that the Disney princesses parts were the highlight of the movie.  It was a fun gag to see them wearing modern clothes, but I sort of wanted to see them back in their traditional costumes after that.  It's too bad that most of their parts were already in the trailer.

I guess this is the first Disney mash-up which also included Star Wars characters

I wish they could make a movie with just the superteam of Disney Princesses versus the superteam of the Disney villains.  

Edited May 27, 2019 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

This article is about Game of Thrones, but it's about tropes, twists, surprises, and how that can work well or badly. It would be interesting to go through OUAT and categorize the various "twists."

Type A -- the fair play twist (there are clues setting it up, but figuring it out is like solving a puzzle)
Type B -- the genre subversion (plays with your expectations to create a surprise)
Type C -- the guarded secret (information withheld to preserve the surprise, but audience knows there's missing info)
Type D -- the WTF (information withheld without the audience knowing, so the twist comes out of nowhere)
Type E -- the non-twist (you think there will be a twist, but it turns out you can take it on face value)

[KAOS Agent]

The end of that article could be completely written for viewers of Once and the final message is something a lot of TV writers, including Kitsis and Horowitz, need to understand.

"...[The Game of Thrones writers] want to write moments that get people talking, like GRRM did. However, they want the audience to be totally surprised. They want to make sure the audience doesn’t see their twists coming. That leaves them justifying their story either through having other characters explain what happened after the fact, or talking about character motivations outside the text, such as in interviews. In my opinion, an author should mainly rely on Type A, B, and E plot twists. These enhance a story and keep the audience interested even after they’ve experienced it once. They aren’t reading or watching solely to find out what happens, but to understand the context of it all, to watch characters struggle with decisions, and to see what they missed the first time through. The other types leave the audience feeling unsatisfied at best and betrayed at worst.

To writers, I suggest this: plot twists aren’t some prize to be guarded and kept away from readers. They’re a reward for the readers who love the thrill of a treasure hunt, who like guessing and theorizing. Let your readers explore your story on their own terms and remember that your story isn’t diminished if it’s predictable."

[Camera One]

And the Writers aren't thinking about rewatch value.  When fans rewatch, the surprise will be gone.  If the twist came out of nowhere and wasn't organic, it sticks out like a sore thumb and really takes you out of the story.  There needs to be something that keeps viewers coming back even if they're no longer on the edge of their seats... that's where the character moments and satisfying payoff come into the equation.  Both of those were in short supply in "Once".  

Edited May 29, 2019 by Camera One

[Camera One]

I was reading this article about "Games of Thrones", titled "What I'll miss most about Game of Thrones."

Quote

What exactly we’ll miss will differ from person to person, but the aspect I think I’ll miss the most was the community feeling.

Game of Thrones was a show best enjoyed in groups, be they literal or courtesy of the internet, and I believe it’s that aspect of Thrones that will make it hard for a similar show to come along any time soon.

First is the intricate plot. Game of Thrones followed dozens of characters across multiple continents, blending magical prophecies with real world politics. Everyone had their favorite characters, whether they be secondary players like Jorah Mormont or Olenna Tyrell to major ones like Jon Snow or Daenerys Targaryen. Regardless, people were interested in more than just the main characters. That’s different from a show like Breaking Bad...

Any show hoping to replicate the community aspect of Thrones would first have to boast a similarly deep mythology and sprawling story. Plenty of people enjoyed The Big Bang Theory, but was there ever much debate what was going to happen episode to episode?

A lot of the reason they cite are the same for why we enjoyed "Once Upon a Time".

Quote

We loved to spend time wondering how things would play out for Character A, and what that would mean for Character B.

On "Once" the answer is simple... it would mean nothing because ONTO THE NEXT CENTRIC, everyone!

Or we could reword that and say "We loved to spend time wondering how things SHOULD HAVE played out for Character A and what they SHOULD HAVE meant for Character B."

Edited June 3, 2019 by Camera One

[Writing Wrongs]

I've been re-watching Lost and I now cringe when I see "Written by Adam Horowitz and Edward Kitsis". Of course they wrote the infamous episode, "Expose". LOL

[KingOfHearts]

3 hours ago, Writing Wrongs said:

I've been re-watching Lost and I now cringe when I see "Written by Adam Horowitz and Edward Kitsis". Of course they wrote the infamous episode, "Expose". LOL

"Expose" is actually one of my favorite episodes of Lost, though I understand why a lot of people hated it. Oddly enough, most of the A&E episodes were pretty inoffensive. (They were usually Hurley-centrics and lighthearted character studies that didn't affect the overall plot that much.)

However, they wrote "Fire + Water", which absolutely infuriated me. I hated it so much. The only other episode of television that makes me as angry is "The Cricket Game" from OUAT.

Edited June 3, 2019 by KingOfHearts

[Writing Wrongs]

I didn't mind Expose either. I don't think people got what it was about. Everyone was bitching about Paolo and Nikki just showing up and getting screen time, so they were just showing that they were there from the beginning all along. I thought it was pretty clever.

[Camera One]

New "Frozen" trailer.

Elsa and the Sixth Ogre War?  

I can't tell what this movie is even about.

Edited June 12, 2019 by Camera One

[Camera One]

Opening scene of Frozen 2:

Spoiler

The movie begins with a flashback, just like the first Frozen, as Elsa and Anna's dad tells them a bedtime story about an enchanted elemental forest. Something went wrong during his visit there causing him to flee back to Arendelle, and there has been a disconnect between the people of the town and the elements -- air, fire, water, earth -- ever since.

Bresee... went on to add that the biggest question trying to be answered in Frozen 2 is, “Why was Elsa born with her powers?”

I can imagine what A&E would have done with that premise.  Misthaven?

[Camera One]

"Games of Thrones" is filming a prequel that is set 5000 years before the original series.

Do you think "Once" should do the same?  It might be interesting to explore origins of the tree nymphs and the Prehistoric Victorian society.  Or maybe the origins of the Enchanted Forest and the formation of all the realms?  The origins of darkness and light and the Holy Grail?  

[Camera One]

Did anyone post their thoughts on "Mary Poppins Returns"?  I just watched it on DVD.

I thought it did a good job of capturing the spirit and style of the original.  Because of that, the movie felt old fashioned.  It started out well... I was glad the children weren't brats, so they didn't try to do a retread of the same plot.  The first few songs seemed like they had a purpose. 

By the middle of the movie, though, it became episodic and none of the episodes or songs seemed to serve any real purpose in character or plot.  I know the original movie was sort of similar, but with less memorable songs, it wasn't as successful.   I haven't read the books for so long I don't know which stories they took from the books (the books are also very episodic though).

The plot with the parents felt rather disconnected from these episodes with the children.  Mary Poppins hardly interacted with Michael and Jane, so it was unclear what her purpose of returning even was.  I guess it was instilling Hope™?  

Overall, though, the production values were good and the actors did a credible job throughout.  I liked how there were some score refrains of the original movie whenever Michael had a moment with Mary Poppins.  

Spoiler

I felt the climax was a tad weak, though.  The various plot threads didn't really come together, with the exception of the stock certificate being on the kite.  The whole climbing Big Ben to stop time thing came out of nowhere, and the downfall of the villain wasn't satisfying.  The evil animated wolf was supposed to parallel the evil banker, but that connection couldn't be explained in any way.   There could have been more clever call-backs to the original than what we got.

When Mary Poppins was singing about where the lost things go, I almost laughed imagining A&E incorporating The Land of Lost People and Things in Season 10B.

Edited June 30, 2019 by Camera One

[Camera One]

I finally braved a theater full of kids and watched "Aladdin".  Very specific spoilers abound below.

Like the other live-action remakes, this movie doesn't come close to the original.  But it wasn't as bad as I had read in reviews.  A lot of the Youtube clips and songs seen out of context felt really weak, but they did work better within the context of the movie. 

In general, when a remake tries to copy scene-by-scene the original, it generally doesn't succeed and I found many instances of that in this movie.  The first part of the movie was clunky, especially when characters said exact lines from the original movie.  An example was when someone in the travelling royal entourage called Aladdin a street-rat at the beginning using the same line as the original.  It fell flat, whereas in the original movie, you really felt for Aladdin.  Even the musical sequence of "One Jump Ahead" felt weaker because it was like a bland replay of the original with a weird rockier version of the song.

Spoiler

Will Smith did a good job as the Genie, though it was still slightly cringey when he used some of the same lines as the original.  He was a lot better when the dialogue was different.  I think "Friend Like Me" worked better because the visual gags weren't direct copies.  

They also did a bit of rearranging/truncation of the events at the beginning of the movie which I thought worked, though it also worked the way it played out in the original.  Having Aladdin show up at the palace was interesting solely because it was different, and not having Jasmine think Aladdin died was alright as well.  One unnecessary/ineffective change was Aladdin getting out of the cave by making a wish but not rubbing the lamp.  That made it seem like a technicality that a Genie might/might not ignore.  The original method made more sense (with Aladdin tricking the Genie into proving he had powers by leaving the cave).

I was surprised I didn't find Jafar that bad.  He definitely isn't the delicious villain of the original, but he still had a different menacing quality to him.  I sort of liked that he used to be a thief living on the street himself... he was what someone like Aladdin could have become.  I thought that was better than the convoluted backstory he got in the Wonderland spinoff.  This movie's backstory also explained why he would fall for Aladdin's trick to become a genie himself in the end.  Though there were problems with that ending the way it was done here, since he wished himself the most powerful being in the universe, which could have easily backfired on Aladdin.

It took me a longer to warm to Jasmine for some reason.  For the first half, it was a little unconvincing that she was training to be/saw herself as the future sultan.  I liked that she said she was into maps later, but they needed to show that more.  Plus in this context, it was hard to believe she didn't realize people in the marketplace had to pay for bread and not get it for free.  If she really was that naive, it was unlikely she could have come up with effective economic policies.  On paper, the idea that the sultan protected/shielded her after her mother's death was a good idea, but it needed to be fleshed out more.  The sultan seemed really incompetent, especially because the audience couldn't blame it on the character being the comic relief child-like version he was in the original.   I liked the incorporation of a bit of politics in regards to Jafar wanting to invade another kingdom.  

I must say during the movie, I kept thinking of "Once" and how they squandered their chance with Aladdin and Jasmine  This Jasmine was so much stronger than the whiny one-note version in Season 6.   But wait, who needs Jasmine considering politics when you could have "Princess" Tiana doing so?

The actor who played Aladdin had charisma.  In the original movie, it was frustrating how Aladdin continued to lie to Jasmine, and in some ways, it was even worse in this movie.  He was a lot harsher to the Genie for breaking his promise to set him free, whereas in the original, he was sheepish and you could tell he felt badly about it.  In this movie, he did a 180 realizing he needed to tell the truth in the following scene after a short song reprise.  If anything, they needed to show how Aladdin came to that conclusion and to show his growth. 

That part of the movie didn't work, and neither did major parts of the climax (with the usual requisite long ultimately pointless chase scene).  Poofing Aladdin to the "ends of the Earth" instead of killing him just made Jafar seem less evil.  It worked in the animated movie since the flying carpet went with Aladdin to the ends of the Earth, but it didn't work in this movie because the Genie used his magic to send the magic carpet to save Aladdin.  Which begs the question of when can the Genie use magic and when can't he?  He couldn't have done something like that to save Aladdin from drowning before?  It seemed like sloppy world-building to me.   And they also had Jasmine grabbing the lamp, but she doesn't use it and instead we got the drawn-out chase sequence which ends up with Iago getting the lamp back anyway.

Overall, I think this movie was a little better than "Beauty and the Beast" (mainly because they changed and shifted things around a bit more) but in the same general ballpark.  The characters were likeable enough that a live-action of the direct-to-video sequels might work considering they started off a lot more flawed.

But heck, now that Disney is doing so many live-actions, I wish they'd consider a mash-up movie.  What about a movie with the main characters from Aladdin, Cinderella, Mary Poppins, Christopher Robin and Beauty and the Beast?  Now, THAT is how it could actually get interesting for once.

Edited July 3, 2019 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

I ran across a miniseries on Amazon Prime Video that might be of interest to OUAT fans: Jack and the Beanstalk: The Real Story.

A wealthy real estate developer is building a casino at the castle his family owns, but work has to stop when they find bones. They're dinosaur-sized, but they're a human skeleton -- a human who's been murdered. He learns that he's descended from the original Jack, as in "and the beanstalk," that his family wealth came from the things Jack stole, and that Jack's actions were devastating to the world at the top of the beanstalk. Now he has to set things right or be executed for his ancestor's crimes.

It's a Henson production (directed by Brian Henson), but not that muppety. There are really only a couple of puppet-type creatures (including the goose that lays golden eggs). I think most of the creature shop creations involve the makeup and prosthetics for the giants. It's from 2001 and was produced by Hallmark, so I guess it was on the Hallmark Channel (from the days before they specialized in sappy Christmas movies). The cast is pretty impressive for something so borderline cheesy. Matthew Modine is the lead, with Mia Sara as the female lead and supporting roles played by Jon Voight, Vanessa Redgrave, Daryl Hannah, and Richard Attenborough. Plus a bunch of people who were unknown at the time who became better known afterward. You pretty much need to keep IMDB open while watching to catch all the "Hey, it's that guy!" appearances. There's Anton Lesser (now known for Game of Thrones and Endeavour) as a nerdy scientist, a very young James Corden as the son of the giant Jack killed, Jim Carter (from Downton Abbey) as Odin, JJ Feild (Captain America and lots of Jane Austen movies) in a hideous wig as the original Jack, and a very, very young Freddie Highmore in a tiny role. For Once interest, we've got Tom Ellis (Robin 1.0) in another hideous wig as the bully whose treatment of Jack leads him to take the magic bean deal (and I think he also shows up as an extra in a crowd scene in a tavern) and there's Rachel Shelley (Milah) as the voice of the magic harp (possibly some motion capture there, too) and also in a tiny role as a woman picked up by Jon Voight's character (and, wow, is she stunning when glammed up).

Like OUAT, we've got the modern day clashing with fairy tales, plus flashbacks and portal travel to a fairy tale world. And there's the revisionist look at fairy tales, though I think Jack was never what I'd consider a hero. This just takes the consequences of his stealing seriously, so it's not quite the Once-brand "the person you thought was a hero is really a villain."

I'm not sure I'd call it good, but it is interesting and entertaining. IMDB lists two episodes and Amazon has it in three, so it's got some weird pacing. Nothing much happens until near the end of the first Amazon episode, but that would have been in the middle of the first part if it were just a two-parter. Still, it gets off to a really slow start, as we have to see the main character wake up in the morning, have a conversation with his butler about whether he should drink his coffee or his protein smoothie first, then have his insurance physical, then have a board meeting. But the last half of the series is pretty good. If you're missing the Once vibe but can't bear to rewatch season 6, this may be worth watching.

[Writing Wrongs]

Maleficent 2 Trailer # 2

I think it looks great.

[KingOfHearts]

From what critics are saying, The Lion King is very shot-for-shot and lacks a lot of new material. It's difficult to portray a wide range of emotions on hyper-realistic animal faces. I myself haven't been too keen on the subdued color scheme or the fact it's an animated remake of an animated film. If Disney is going to remake its own stuff, they need to at least try to spin the story in a new way. The problem is that if it's just a slightly worse version of the original film, I could just be watching the superior older one.

[Shanna Marie]

I think the live action Cinderella has been my favorite of the live-action remakes because it seemed more like a new version of the fairy tale, with a few Easter egg references to the Disney animated version, rather than like an actual remake of the Disney animated version. Beauty and the Beast was okay because it was interesting seeing that world interpreted in live action, but I'm not sure it added much to the story. I don't see the point of doing an animated remake of The Lion King (but then, even the cartoon was never a favorite of mine. There's a huge plot/character arc flaw, and now that I've seen it, I can't unsee it, and I thought the music was bland pop rather than the rather brilliant Broadway-style scores of the other animated films).

[Camera One]

I heard the "Mulan" movie will be more different from the animated movie, but the teaser trailer made it seem very much the same.  It would be nice if it's a little more historically accurate.  I've always wondered if they wore white makeup like they did in Japan during that historical era.  I did read some criticism of the trailer that the dwellings portrayed were in the wrong part of China and 1000 years before they were actually built.

I must say I'm glad there doesn't seem to be Mushu the dragon.  He took me out of the time and place, and I found the tone of the animated movie was very abrupt between the serious and the ridiculously silly.

I hope the producers consulted with A&E for their amazing writing for the Mulan character.

Edited July 21, 2019 by Camera One

[Camera One]

I rewatched the 1941 "Dumbo".  I remember being bored by it as a kid... this time, I think I was able to appreciate it a little bit more.  The animals were cute and I did feel really sad for Dumbo and his mother.  I was surprised how much animal cruelty there was and the film was a bit dark (but not bleak, LOL).  I did not realize that Dumbo didn't talk in the movie at all.  Some parts still tested my patience, like the Dumbo-gets-drunk scene.  I really don't know if kids these days would even have the patience to watch these old movies.  Apparently a lot of teenagers had never seen the animated "Aladdin" even though that movie was from the 1990s.  

[Camera One]

I'm watching "Captain America" and hopefully the rest of the Marvel movies that I don't know much about, and I was thinking about how they might reboot the show. I'm starting to think that fairy tales, folklore and literary characters are out, but the other acquired Disney franchises might be in.

They could do a comic book version of "Once Upon a Time"... so, in Comic-Book-World, The Green Goblin threatens to trap Spiderman and a pregnant Mary Jane to a world where there will be no heroes... "our" world.  Right before The Green Goblin and other Marvel villains unleash the rip in the universe, Peter and Mary Jane send their baby Emerson to "our" world.  28 years later, a young 10-year-old girl... let's call her Lucy (because we need to throw a bone to those *true* fans), goes to Boston to find her biological father, Emerson, a bailsbondman.  Lucy forces Emerson to take her back home to Comicbrooke, where the mayor is Norman Osborn, Wolfie is the waiter at a diner, Thorie is the local handywoman, and Antonia Stark is the local inventor, etc.  Everyone is scared of the local pawnshop owner, Dr. Doominic.  Lucy has a large comic book collection and is convinced that everyone in town is a comic book character.  Emerson decides to stay when he becomes convinced by his "superpower" that Lucy's stepfather Norman doesn't actually love her.  Emerson befriends a timid local high school teacher Peter Parker, who is of course his dad.  In flashbacks, we learn that Peter Parker ruined Norman Osborn's life.   At the end of the episode, Norman Osborn closes the door and we see his wife... an Alternate Alternate Alternate Alternate version of Regina.  Dun dun dun.

Edited August 2, 2019 by Camera One

[Camera One]

I borrowed and watched the second "Fantastic Beasts" movie tonight, and I'm just struck at the bleakness of so-called fun fantasy movies.  I thought the first movie was a nice mix of humor and fantasy and drama, but the second one was doom and gloom and deaths all over.  I suppose the Harry Potter series eventually became like that too.  I guess the difference is I liked those characters, whereas this second movie really focused on convoluted plotting and "twists" more than exploring the actual main characters, who got contrived obstacles and conflicts.  I couldn't really connect the Younger Dumbledore with the Older one, and his cryptic warnings and sending other people to do dirty work makes it hard to believe he's truly the good guy.

If only there were Writers who could write stories that were dark but not bleak.  

Edited August 2, 2019 by Camera One

[Camera One]

I was watching the DVD extras, and JK Rowlings said this about Dumbledore, "I really thought it was important [Jude Law] knew the burden the character is carrying, because without that knowledge, Jude is playing someone who appears to be playing games with people's lives, and that's not who Dumbledore is".

I thought that was interesting because the "wise" all-knowing sage characters on "Once" had similar problems... Merlin, The Blue Fairy and Glinda all seemed to have knowledge that they were keeping to themselves, so they seemed to be playing games with other people's lives (especially Merlin in 5A).  I think Dumbledore suffered some of the same issues in the Harry Potter/Fantastic Beasts series too, which makes him less likeable as time goes on.

[Camera One]

I watched the first "Thor" movie and I was surprised that I liked it.  Maybe it was because there actually wasn't that much fighting in the middle of the movie.  It was more like a fish-out-of-water tale with Thor reacting to modern Earth (something we got so little of on "Once"). 

Considering A&E hardly bothered with the Greek gods, it would be unlikely we would have ever gotten the Norse gods (and if so, it would be in-name-only).  I guess Thor's hammer was at Rumple's castle at some point.  It was fun to see Josh Dallas.  I liked how this movie actually had a sense of humor and it was easy to root for Thor's friends and it was satisfying to see the humans find out that Thor really was who he said he was.  We could have got so much more of that on "Once", especially if the Storybrookers had to venture out into the "real world" once in a while and sometimes had to reveal their true selves.

[KingOfHearts]

Disney+ somehow cancels its first show before the service has even launched

"The Book of Enchantment", about the backstories of Disney villains, was apparently "darker" than executives expected.

I guess they should've went for "bleak" instead.

[Writing Wrongs]

Live action Cruella movie with Emma Stone:

Oh, dear.

[Camera One]

Quote

The prequel to 101 Dalmatians, Cruella will rewind time and explore exactly how iconic Disney villain Cruella de Vil came to despise dalmatians so much. The original films (both the 1961 animated version and the 1996 remake) depict Cruella as a rich, evil old lady determined to dog-nap dalmatian puppies to turn into fur coats. But what went wrong in Cruella de Vil's life to make her develop such a hatred for the breed?

The origin story is set in 1980s London, and will track the life of a young Cruella alongside her sidekicks, Jasper and Horace. Already can't wait.

Source

Double oh dear.  

[Trini]

4 hours ago, Writing Wrongs said:

Live action Cruella movie with Emma Stone:

Oh, dear.

Visually, it's good to me; but I'm not at all interested in an entire Cruella (+ sidekicks) backstory.

[KingOfHearts]

A character like Cruella doesn't need a reason to hate dalmatians. She's just crazy. She saw the dalmatian fur, wanted it, and was going of happily skin a bunch of puppies to get it. 

[Melgaypet]

3 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

A character like Cruella doesn't need a reason to hate dalmatians. She's just crazy. She saw the dalmatian fur, wanted it, and was going of happily skin a bunch of puppies to get it. 

Seriously. I no more need to know why Cruella de Ville skins puppies than I need to know why Hannibal Lector eats people. That's just what they do.

[Camera One]

Cruella looks like Bellatrix Lestrange from Harry Potter.  No doubt she was bullied as a kid by Dalmatian-owning rich snobs (maybe Anita's mother, who was a real meanie) which drove her misguided attempt to steal their dogs and make a coat out of them.  But then Young Anita is accepting of her odd appearance and they become friends.  When Young Anita is injured, Cruella (not Jim) gives her a true love's kiss and they open an animal shelter and everyone lived a Happily Ever After until the sequel. 

[Camera One]

I don't read comic books so I'm watching the Marvel movies from the beginning.  I finally got to the first "Avengers" movie, and I can't say I was that impressed.  Most of it was pretty much a mindless action flick and it was hard for me to find it fun when I was watching a city is being violently destroyed with all the casualties.

I thought the personalities and depth of the various superheroes seemed to be lost from their own individual movies (I had watched the first Captain America movie, "Thor", the Edward Norton Hulk movie and Ironman I and 2).  I was annoyed at the requisite hate-each-other-at-the-beginning stuff, but even when they were working together, there wasn't any effective humor to make it entertaining to watch.  The rapport wasn't really there.  The Thor/Loki storyline felt really epic and grand in their movie, but here, they seemed like empty shells, wearing the same costumes but lacking their essence.

All-in-all, I actually didn't think this movie was any better than "Justice League" with Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, The Flash and Aquaman.

There were also things I was confused about, since there were leaps of plot between the individual movies and this team-up.  Why would Loki know about The Hulk and Captain America?  How did Thor get to Earth again when the connection was severed?  

I think that might be a problem with mash-up movies... do the individual characters keep their identity and personality and show depth?  I would love a Disney Princess mash-up movie, but would it have the same problem?  The Princesses were the best part of "Wreck-It Ralph" but they were just glorified cameos.  Sometimes, "Once" did a decent job when they had a few Disney characters working together.  For example, Ariel always felt like Ariel no matter which "team" she was in.  

Edited August 30, 2019 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

Finally saw the live-action remake of Aladdin. Truthfully, I liked it better than I thought I would.

Aladdin and Jasmine couldn't have been better cast. They had all the charm and warmth of the original characters, plus very similar singing voices. Aladdin was delightfully wide-eyed and well-meaning, while Jasmine was as elegant as ever. I'd be lying if I didn't say I wasn't singing along to "A Whole New World". 

Genie and the Handmaiden was unexpected and random, but it was hilarious. I shipped them more than Aladdin/Jasmine at some points. I felt the Handmaiden was a good addition.

All that being said, there were some serious flaws. What the hell were they thinking with Jafar? He lacked the smarmy gravitas of the original and the actor couldn't pull off intimidation at all. Jafar never seemed like much of a threat to me, even at his most powerful. His character was very one-note, not that the original had any depth. Making him a thief like Aladdin could've been interesting, but that didn't really go anywhere.

There was too much convenient pick-pocketing. Felt like a cheap plot device.

I wanted to like Will Smith as the Genie, and while he had his moments, he was annoying for the first half of the movie. His cockiness got old pretty fast.

There was a pretty significant drag leading up to the climax. It's like the movie hit pause all of a sudden. Banishing Aladdin to the north pole, imprisoning Jafar and then having him steal the lamp again, and the giant bird chase were all wastes of time.

These live action remakes continue to feel like just attempts from Disney to make their films more politically correct. Jasmine's intent to lead in a male-dominated society against some dumb rule about marrying prince has been done to death in Hollywood. Her song, "I Won't Be Silent", was too pop and seemed like a discount version of Let It Go. (I was really disappointed they deleted "Desert Moon". Found it on YouTube, and it was beautiful.)

So... I don't know. It wasn't the worst by any means. I enjoyed it better than Beauty and the Beast.

Edited August 31, 2019 by KingOfHearts