OUAT vs. Other Fairy Tales: Compare & Contrast

[Camera One]

I've watched the deleted scenes, and I think they gave me a slightly more positive view of the movie.  Initially, I found it hard to buy Jasmine wanting to be politically involved or the reason for why Jasmine never left the palace, and including even two short scenes about those which were deleted, would have made a difference.  Of course, the deleted scenes also included a few more of the hit-and-miss jokes, some of which were pretty groan-worthy.  

I agree the "Desert Moon" song should have been kept in, especially when they mention the song when Jasmine was at Aladdin's place and played a few notes of it on the instrument.  The Aladdin and Jasmine actors were likeable, but it was more enjoyable to see them do new things, rather than re-play iconic moments from the movie.  There was no way they could live up to the original "A Whole New World" and they couldn't.  But this new duet was more organic to this format.  I kind of want to see them try a live-action retool of the direct-to-video sequels, since they could be free to make more changes.

[KingOfHearts]

9 hours ago, Camera One said:

I kind of want to see them try a live-action retool of the direct-to-video sequels, since they could be free to make more changes.

A sequel is already being written, so that's possible.

[Camera One]

Spoilers about Maleficent 2's villain:

Spoiler

The trailers to date for the Disney sequel have teased that maybe it'll be Maleficent (Angelina Jolie) going full-evil, but it seems that Queen Ingrith, the mother of Prince Phillip, will be the real villain.

"Phillip's been wanting to marry Aurora for a long time, and now I've figured out a way to make this all work towards my master plan. Her sole purpose is to protect her people, and for her, the ends justify the means," Pfeiffer told Disney twenty-three magazine.

Queen Ingrith is motivated by the tragic death of her brother, who she believes was killed by one of the enchanted forest's creatures.

"She has a fear of the unknown," explained director Joachim Rønning. "And that fear translates to aggression, with attack being her best defence."

It seems that Queen Ingrith will be taking inspiration from King Stefan in the first movie. He managed to sever Maleficent's wings with iron (fairies' "kryptonite"), and the Queen has her "wonderfully strange, but brilliant" engineer Gerda (Jenn Murray) to help.

Source

So in the first movie, King Stefan was destroyed

Spoiler

So this time, it's Prince Phillip's mother.  How original, eh?

Edited September 12, 2019 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

I saw this article about a movie that's going to address the Peter Pan story from Wendy's perspective (and her family's), with Pan as the villain. The article does mention that Pan was a villain in Once Upon a Time.

[Camera One]

Look at this "Maleficent 2" teaser.  The title is the "Something Evil" Spot.

But within the teaser, the words are "Something Wicked".

Doesn't Disney know there's a huge difference between evil and wicked?

Tsk tsk!

If Maleficent doesn't turn out to be actually truly evil in the movie (and she won't), then all these trailers are totally misleading.  It will probably be "Maleficent: Mistress of Perceived But Not True Evil".

Edited September 22, 2019 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

It will probably be "Maleficent: Mistress of Perceived But Not True Evil".

"Mistress of Edge"

Edited September 23, 2019 by KingOfHearts

[KingOfHearts]

There's a new trailer out for Frozen 2. Apparently there's an "Enchanted Forest" to the north that's cursed and no one can leave or enter it.

All I could think of was Misthaven under a Dark Curse. Felt very OUAT.

[Camera One]

Dear Writers of Frozen 2,

You're welcome.

Adam and Eddy

[Camera One]

AppleTV has released trailers for a lot of their new shows over the last 2 weeks but none yet for "Amazing Stories".  

Are they waiting to tease A&E's new masterpiece since it's one of the big guns?

[KingOfHearts]

2 hours ago, Camera One said:

Are they waiting to tease A&E's new masterpiece since it's one of the big guns?

They should probably advertise it's from the writers of Lost and not Once Upon a Time. Looks better, lmao.

[Camera One]

Some new teaser scenes from "Maleficent 2".

So I guess they're going to have Maleficent as a protective/jealous godmother who forbids Aurora from marrying Philip because of his evil family.  I suppose that does allow Maleficent to seem "evil" when she is well-meaning.  It could work.

But it looks like Aurora will be duped by her evil mother-in-law for much of the movie.  And that sounds frustrating to watch.

So why is Maleficent acting so inhuman and emotionless, even at the beginning of the movie? 

I think the first movie left such a bad taste in my mouth that it will take a lot for me to enjoy this movie.  It also lacks the "fun" element of... dare I say it, an A&E production.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Camera One

[Camera One]

I found this review of Maleficent 2 interesting because of its parallels to "Once".  

Lots of spoilers abound, though, so don't read if you are avoiding spoilers.  I suppose the plot is not surprising given the trailer.

Quote

Adults, however, may be surprised when they realize that the plan of Queen Ingrith (Michelle Pfeiffer), a human supremacist leader, is the complete eradication of the Fae. This isn’t evident at first – initially, it’s more about the question of whether the creatures of the Moors and the humans of neighboring lands can live in peace. But, as the story develops, Ingrith’s plan is exposed. The problem with Mistress of Evil isn’t that it addresses the topic of genocide but that the resolution is tone-deaf. Consequences are swept under the rug. The tidy manner in which the film concludes is offensive in its determination not to be offensive. You can’t present an issue as serious as this then wrap it up with everyone singing “Kumbaya.”....

Is it valid to dismiss the film’s blasé approach to genocide by claiming that “it’s only a fairy tale?” Is it a defense that few under the age of 12 will recognize the dark allegorical aspects? Mistress of Evil makes a conscious decision to address a subject that not many family films would touch with a ten-foot pole…then bungles the implications and the message. When one takes a look at how many morally questionable positions the film adopts in order to achieve its happy ending, it raises questions not only about the movie’s ethics but whether the filmmakers are aware of their infractions.

This reminds me of how "Once" treated the village massacres.  There were no real consequences.  A&E also swept rape until the rug by claiming it's only a fairy tale.  We would have to watch "Maleficent 2" to see whether their treatment of mass killings was similar or different.  The whole "everyone singing Kumbaya" suggests it could be similar to the heroes becoming a happy family with Regina, Rumple and Zelena.

Edited October 20, 2019 by Camera One

[Camera One]

Is anyone watching the "Little Mermaid Live" musical on ABC tonight?  The promo made it look pretty hokey.  And is it worth watching if Regina isn't in it?  

[Alice87]

On 3/5/2015 at 11:02 AM, Writing Wrongs said:

Live action Beauty & The Beast casting news:

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/downton-abbey-star-dan-stevens-115800904.html

So Emma Watson as Belle, Luke Evans as Gaston and some guy from Downton Abbey as the Beast. Hmm. Not sold on Emma Watson.

I like more the Once Upon a Time version of Belle.

[Shanna Marie]

On 11/5/2019 at 10:45 PM, Camera One said:

Is anyone watching the "Little Mermaid Live" musical on ABC tonight?  The promo made it look pretty hokey. 

I recorded it. It was just the animated movie, with the live production only for the musical numbers. I fast forwarded through the movie to get to the new/live stuff. It looked like they were using the versions of the songs from the Broadway musical rather than the movie, and even included a couple of songs from the musical that aren't in the movie (which I figured they'd have to do, otherwise they'd have had no music in the last half and wouldn't have needed to bother casting Eric, since he maybe has one line in the opening song and that's about it)). I haven't seen the Broadway version other than some clips, but it looked to me like they were using the staging from the Broadway show. For the most part, the musical numbers were good. Ariel and Eric were lovely and had beautiful voices. I know she was the voice of Moana, but I don't know who he was. I'd love to see them actually doing the Broadway show (and I wonder why they didn't do that here instead of going cheap and just showing the movie except for the musical numbers). Queen Latifah was great. I didn't think Shaggy was all that good as Sebastian. It seemed to me like he was singing in a different key than the orchestra was playing.

I did like the way they transitioned back and forth between the animated movie and the live production. It was all just good enough to make me wish it had been better.

[Camera One]

1 hour ago, Shanna Marie said:

I'd love to see them actually doing the Broadway show (and I wonder why they didn't do that here instead of going cheap and just showing the movie except for the musical numbers).

I felt pretty much the same way about everything.  I did watch the whole thing, but I wish they didn't cheap out (relying on the animated movie felt really cheap).  I would have liked to see the whole Broadway musical played out.  I haven't seen it, but I do have the soundtrack and it would have been neat to see these actors play out the story.  The live audience stuff felt like it was a reality show, which I didn't appreciate.  With Queen Latifah on board, I was surprised they didn't include Ursula's other song from the Broadway musical establishing her backstory.  

[KingOfHearts]

I'm doing a rewatch of Buffy the Vampire Slayer with someone who hasn't seen it before. I've watched through S5. Didn't finish S6 and didn't watch S7. 

I forgot how good the writing was, even in the first episode. I still stand by the fact the writers waited until the season finale to reveal the Slayer death prophecy. That was one thing they did right that A&E didn't. Knowing Emma was going to "die" through all of S6 on OUAT was a huge bummer and didn't up the stakes very much because we knew they weren't actually going to kill her off. Waiting until the season finale on Buffy really upped the tension because the audience didn't have time to think about it too hard.

I will say though that this time around, the pacing felt a little weird. The drama and tension really came out of nowhere in the season finale. 

Didn't expect to see a baby-faced Eion Bailey in the hyena episode.

[Camera One]

I was watching this joke trailer for "Frozen 2" on Youtube, but it could have been something that we could have seen on "Once" in 4A if Disney didn't oversee.

[tennisgurl]

Arrow, which is on its final season, is doing a "grown up meets his kids who are now adults after being tragically separated from them as small children" storyline that is giving me a lot of Once flashbacks, but good ones this time! Early season two did have some really nice moments when Emma and her parents really dealt with their issues, like Emma feeling abandoned by her parents even if she now understands why they did it and that it was to protect her (before the retcons set in) and Charming and Snow being heartbroken that they missed their daughters childhood, etc. before it was all quickly dropped to focus on Regina worship and whatever shiny toy A&E focused on for the minute. Arrow is actually doing a good job with this story so far, they are really going hard on the complicated emotions they all have about meeting each other after so much time, and that while main hero Oliver had to die while his children were still really young to save the multiverse* (long story) his kids, especially his daughter Mia (who was just a baby when he died) who feels abandoned by him, even if she understands now why he did what he did. Oliver is heartbroken that he doesent get to raise his two kids, but is just so happy to be getting a chance with them now, its a really complicated situation and they are getting a lot of dramatic, funny, and heartwarming scenes out of it, like Oliver sharing his complicated history with his kids, his son coming out to him, and Oliver training Mia to take up his mantle while they bond, there is a lot of great stuff happening here, and I am really glad that the show is actually taking the time to really explore all of the emotions here. 

Also, the actors playing Oliver and his daughter Mia and son William already have very father/child like chemistry with each other, despite the actors being pretty close in age, the way that Emma had parent/child chemistry with Snow and Charming, despite their similarity in ages. And unlike adult Henry and Regina, who have super weird inappropriate chemistry with each other that in no way says father and mom 

*Basically what is going on is Oliver was told that he had to die in the upcoming cross-over event by this time traveling space guy for the multiverse to survive, and while he is still alive now, he is basically running around trying to wrap things up and possibly save the world before he dies in a few weeks, and then his children from the future (who we have been following in flashforwards) showed up out of nowhere in the present/current timeline of the show, no one knows how, and now they are all having adventures together. Like I said, long story. 

Edited November 21, 2019 by tennisgurl

[Camera One]

Is anyone going to see "Frozen 2"?  The trailers don't make the sequel seem all that interesting to me.  The characters' stories seem complete to me by the end of the first movie and I can't say I want to spend any more time with them.  

[daxx]

6 hours ago, Camera One said:

Is anyone going to see "Frozen 2"?  The trailers don't make the sequel seem all that interesting to me.  The characters' stories seem complete to me by the end of the first movie and I can't say I want to spend any more time with them.  

Sums up my thoughts completely. Just moms of daughters will see this one I’m thinking.

[Shanna Marie]

8 hours ago, Camera One said:

Is anyone going to see "Frozen 2"?  The trailers don't make the sequel seem all that interesting to me.  The characters' stories seem complete to me by the end of the first movie and I can't say I want to spend any more time with them.  

I kind of want to see it, but I'm probably going to wait for a weekday matinee after Thanksgiving. I'm not super-excited, but I deal with small children, so it will probably help for me to have the slightest idea what they're going on about. And on. And on. And on, if it's anything like the response to the first movie.

On another "other fairy tale," last night's The Good Place pretty much blew up the whole "soulmates" concept, talking about how a soulmate isn't something that's found, it's something that's made -- you meet someone you like and connect with, then build a relationship and grow together. That's the opposite of the pixie dust soulmates thing, where that's all that matters and you're meant to be together, even if you have nothing in common and don't bother to grow together.

[KingOfHearts]

Apparently they did use an element for Frozen 2 from OUAT, even if unintentionally. (To be fair, it was an obvious choice to make.)

Spoiler

Anna and Elsa's parents left because they were trying to find answers about Elsa's powers. Elsa, of course, feels guilty as all-get-out about it, just like she did on OUAT.

Edited November 23, 2019 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

Didn't the trailer mention "the Enchanted Forest" as well? 

Another quote from the trailer: "Magic is alluring... with you, she might lose herself to it."  That sounds pretty familiar as well.

Well, I'm pretty sure Rumplestiltskin won't appear, LOL.

[Writing Wrongs]

I saw it and liked it. The parents plot reminded me of Once and the fact that the Enchanted Forest is surrounded by mist reminded me of Once's Enchanted Forest being also known as Misthaven, but that's about it.

[KingOfHearts]

19 hours ago, Camera One said:

Didn't the trailer mention "the Enchanted Forest" as well? 

Another quote from the trailer: "Magic is alluring... with you, she might lose herself to it."  That sounds pretty familiar as well.

Well, I'm pretty sure Rumplestiltskin won't appear, LOL.

I'm waiting for Rumple to just appear out of nowhere in a Disney fairy tale and make a deal with someone.

[Spartan Girl]

You know I never thought I'd say that OUAT did anything better than the Disney version, but at least the OUAT "sequel" to Frozen called out the stupid parents on their crappy parenting and Anna and Elsa got a posthumous apology from them. Why should I care about the parents' backstory in Frozen 2 when it's not acknowledged how badly they screwed over their daughters by isolating them from each other?! 

[Speakeasy]

On 11/22/2019 at 4:29 PM, Shanna Marie said:

On another "other fairy tale," last night's The Good Place pretty much blew up the whole "soulmates" concept, talking about how a soulmate isn't something that's found, it's something that's made -- you meet someone you like and connect with, then build a relationship and grow together. That's the opposite of the pixie dust soulmates thing, where that's all that matters and you're meant to be together, even if you have nothing in common and don't bother to grow together.

The Good Place is a beautiful show and I think it's written with a different attitude to 'Once': it's about ordinary people where Once was, increasingly as the series went on, about big characters with big titles and destinies that make them better and more important than you. 

Prince Henry of Storybrooke (and Misthaven?) is The Author and the Son of The Saviour and has the Heart of the Truest Believer. Doesn't make him any less of a useless dweeb.

[KingOfHearts]

1 hour ago, Speakeasy said:

The Good Place is a beautiful show and I think it's written with a different attitude to 'Once': it's about ordinary people where Once was, increasingly as the series went on, about big characters with big titles and destinies that make them better and more important than you.

It's admirable to see a show whose original characters are iconic in their own rights. 

I don't think that in the beginning of OUAT that using famous characters was necessary lazy or relying on a crutch. It may have made it easier to write in some cases, but it can be equally commendable to use already established characters in a fresh new way. Many of the characters were made iconic separately from the source iterations because of the uniqueness of their OUAT versions. Regina had a lot more going for her than the Evil Queen in the Snow White fairy tale ever did. Same with Rumple. I can separate them from their famous names because the writers added enough interesting originality to them. 

[Speakeasy]

13 hours ago, KingOfHearts said:

I don't think that in the beginning of OUAT that using famous characters was necessary lazy or relying on a crutch. It may have made it easier to write in some cases, but it can be equally commendable to use already established characters in a fresh new way. Many of the characters were made iconic separately from the source iterations because of the uniqueness of their OUAT versions. Regina had a lot more going for her than the Evil Queen in the Snow White fairy tale ever did. Same with Rumple. I can separate them from their famous names because the writers added enough interesting originality to them. 

Don't get me wrong, I love fairy tales and folklore and I love seeing new twists on existing characters. My issue is more the way that, after a certain point, characters started to accumulate attributes and the magic system was used to show how special the characters were:

Henry's not just a precocious, ernest child with an indomitable faith that things can get better he has the heart of the truest believer.

Emma's not just a brave, compassionate woman who'll step up and do the right thing for the people she loves she's The Savior, which we have now decided is like being the Slayer or the Eternal Champion*, and it defines her more than her actual personality.

Rumpelstiltskin isn't just the Dark One because he got his hands on the Dagger by his own cunning and daring; he's the son of Peter Pan and the Black Fairy (who 'invented dark magic') and should have been a Saviour himself, do it's not like he was ever going to live a normal life.

Regina doesn't just have an intense and violently passionate personality that could lead her to be a terrible tyrant or a fearless hero depending on circumstances, we're going to break our own rules of magic and have her dish out magical, curse-breaking True Love without a heart. And her romance isnt just a romance they're soulmates, so their connection is immediately and inherently better and more important than those of normal people.

I'll admit to a particular hatred of soulmates and destiny as story tropes, at least when they're seen as unambiguously good things, not just because they deny agency for the characters but because, again, it seems like the universe thinks these characters are special and especially deserving. I don't know how we're supposed to be happy about that, because the implication is that everyone who doesn't get a soulmate is just, for some reason, not as important in the eyes of God, Fate or whatever. No romance for you, kids who got eaten by the blind witch before you hit puberty.

And it's particularly silly in this show because it becomes a contest where some of the fans get very upset that their pairing isn't True Love or Pixie Dust certified, because that's how the show has set things up, that's what you need to prove your connection is legitimate. Emma literally charged into Hell to get her man back, but you know... It's not exactly pixie dust, is it? 😉

Spoiler

And I hate stealth-soulmateism like those fanfics with different romantic stories in different settings about the same people that say 'charater X will always choose character Y' or 'these two will always be together in every world'. Compare again with the Good Place; in season 3 when they were in the rebooted living timeline, Eleanor had no romantic interest in Chidi before betting her memories if the afterlife back, she just considered him a friend. If she hadn't had a life changing experience and gone through a lot of personal growth, or been placed in a very unusual situation, she... Well she'd have looked at him twice because he's pretty, but she'd have lost all interest once he started talking about ethics.

*I'd actually be quite happy with Emma being the Eternal Champion, but that's a topic for some future fanfic that will never get written 😉

Edited November 27, 2019 by Speakeasy

[KingOfHearts]

Saw the new trailer for Mulan. I don't really like the direction they're going with it. Replacing Shan Yu with this random witch feels very out of place. I don't get why they didn't make it a musical yet they namedropped the songs and used the beats from the score. The allusions aren't subtle at all. I cringed at the lines, "we will make men out of you" and "I will bring honor to us all." The movie seems to want to be darker and grittier, but doesn't look like it wants to commit. It plays like an early 2000s adventure film, like National Treasure or Pirates of the Caribbean. In fact, Around the World in 80 Days had a very similar female Chinese warlord as one of its main antagonists. I respect the wish to do something different from the original film, but I fear it will have to pay too much lip service to be genuine.

[Camera One]

I don't see the point of that witch either.  Do we find out she was persecuted for her gender as a child and that's why she turned evil?  

It's rather hilarious that The Dragon is playing Mulan's father.  Just as we suspected - Mulan's true paternity!

Maybe this is another Wish Realm and the witch is actually an Asian version of Mother Gothel.

I agree that they might as well have gone full-out musical, if they aren't trying to tell a historical story.  It was weird in the animated film how Mulan had all the white face make-up as if she were a geisha in Japan.  Did they really have that tradition in medieval China?

I thought the original movie had a tonal problem.  They had Mushu the ridiculous Eddie Murphy voiced dragon cracking lame jokes and then the next scene they threw in a village massacre.  So I'm glad they cut out the dragon sidekick.  But a lot of the scenes they showed in the trailer were pretty much scenes straight out of the original.

Edited December 6, 2019 by Camera One

[Speakeasy]

5 hours ago, Camera One said:

I don't see the point of that witch either.  Do we find out she was persecuted for her gender as a child and that's why she turned evil?  

I'd hope not, but I'd also hope they would have kept Shan Yu and just expanded his role a bit, if you're going for a feminist theme he's a far better villain. In my view he also just should be more iconic than he is, there's such a sense of menace to him in the cartoon.

5 hours ago, Camera One said:

I thought the original movie had a tonal problem.  They had Mushu the ridiculous Eddie Murphy voiced dragon cracking lame jokes

Dishonour! Dishonour on you! dishonour on your cow! Dishonour on your whole family! 😋

5 hours ago, Camera One said:

And then the next scene they threw in a village massacre. 

My Mulan soundtrack album lists the score for that part as 'deserted village' so maybe it's not that bad and they got away* 🤔

The Chinese army was definitely killed though.

In all seriousness I don't think there's a problem since the movie isn't mainly focussed on fight with Shan Yu, he just looms in the background, he doesn't even get to sing. It's a bit of a gear shift when they do have to fight him but it's not like Hunchback where you go straight from a zealot setting houses on fire or singing about his own violent lust to the whacky gargoyles. 

[KingOfHearts]

9 hours ago, Speakeasy said:

it's not like Hunchback where you go straight from a zealot setting houses on fire or singing about his own violent lust to the whacky gargoyles. 

Mulan did have a few tonal problems, but Hunchback's were much worse. My dream remake of Hunchback is a PG-13 version without the gargoyles, but that won't ever happen.

[Camera One]

The remake of Hunchback is supposed to incorporate more of the original novel, so I think they will get rid of the joking gargoyles.

I actually found the silly gargoyles in "Hunchback" less jarring because they were in Quasimodo's imagination, compared to Mulan's very real wisecracking dragon.  Mushu's brand of humor took me out of Ancient China.  He over-dominated, similar to Robin William's Genie in Aladdin.  It was pretty easy for me to ignore the gargoyles, who weren't funny enough to stand out in any way.

I always thought Shan Yu killed everyone in the village because he said pointedly and mockingly he wanted to return the doll to the little girl (it's pretty sick that his mind would go to that) and later we found the doll among the ruins.  They were also searching for "survivors" in the village, implying they died.  Plus the surrounding area was snowy and abandoned so any survivors would likely have starved or frozen to death.  

I've always thought Shan Yu and Regina would identify with each other really well.

Edited December 7, 2019 by Camera One

[Speakeasy]

5 hours ago, Camera One said:

The remake of Hunchback is supposed to incorporate more of the original novel, so I think they will get rid of the joking gargoyles.

That's a bold choice for Disney, I mean some people were pissed off about Esmeralda and the Race Issue in the 90s, and people are far less forgiving about that these days.

Interesting news though... I don't have high expectations, but it is interesting.

5 hours ago, Camera One said:

I actually found the silly gargoyles in "Hunchback" less jarring because they were in Quasimodo's imagination, compared to Mulan's very real wisecracking dragon.  Mushu's brand of humor took me out of Ancient China.  He over-dominated, similar to Robin William's Genie in Aladdin.  It was pretty easy for me to ignore the gargoyles, who weren't funny enough to stand out in any way.

I never thought it was explicit that they were imaginary, don't hey help out in the battle at the end?

It is interesting how different people's reactions can be to these things... I think for me the rest of Mulan seemed more a China-themed fantasy world than actual ancient China and Aladdin was clearly in a whimsical fairytale place rather than anywhere historical. Hunchback seemed far more grounded in its historical and cultural  background, so the modernity of the gargoyles seemed weirder to me. Clopin seemed like a far more fitting comic relief figure (doesn't he crack silly jokes while leading a lynch mob? exactly)

5 hours ago, Camera One said:

I always thought Shan Yu killed everyone in the village because he said pointedly and mockingly he wanted to return the doll to the little girl (it's pretty sick that his mind would go to that) and later we found the doll among the ruins.  They were also searching for "survivors" in the village, implying they died.  Plus the surrounding area was snowy and abandoned so any survivors would likely have starved or frozen to death.  

...yeah, I have nothing, their odds are very bad. 

5 hours ago, Camera One said:

I've always thought Shan Yu and Regina would identify with each other really well.

That is an outrageous and almost libellous comparison: Shan Yu asked advice from his subordinates and listened to their suggestions, had the genuine loyalty of both his men and his animal sidekick, and as far as we know only killed his enemies 😁

Regarding Mulan and Once, I had a thought... Was the inclusion of Mulan the first example if the writers making a character weaker than her source material? And by this I mean the Disney movie rather than any of the Chinese versions (there are apparently a lot, but I don't know much about any of them)

I mean maybe I've forgotten something but I don't remember her doing anything particularly impressive in season 2, and in her subsequent appearances she's pretty much irrelevant. I think I remember her doing s bit of sword fighting, but in her movie she isn't 'girl with a sword' she's 'girl with bravery, commitment, lateral thinking, situational awareness and high explosives' 😋

Plus there's her doomed love for Philip then Aurora see there you go LGBT representation what more do you want? 😉 

No, in seriousness the fact she was later all sad because she hadn't made a move on Aurora really bugged me. Honour is a big theme of her movie and I think it's done in a pretty good way. How honourable would it be to break up her friends' relationship (and a ménage a trois doesn't seem to be on the table or she wouldn't have to leave... Funnily enough there's a story in the Arabian Nights, featuring a Chinese princess, where that is the happy ending) because of her own feelings? And she regrets NOT hurting her friends like that and has spent YEARS sulking about it?

I feel bad about being bugged by that because it's not like it's a big deal compared to all the heinous crimes other characters have committed, but it's such a step down from her movie; where she forges on and does the right, honourable thing even when it'll just be more work and toil and her friends have abandoned her and she thinks that her heroism will be a source of shame to her family and as far as she knows she'll always be nothing but a freak and a failure and an embarrassment to the people she loves no matter what she does...

I mean she isn't the lead so the show wouldn't focus on her but I think it's glaring that her movie is so epic and she's sidelined so much... And this happens with all the epic characters they bring in; King Arthur is a loser and a charlatan, Hercules is a sad sack who needs Snow White to get a pep talk to give him a pep talk before he gets his groove back, Edmond Dantes is a pawn in a revenge plan he wouldn't even deem worthy to use as a diversion, Captain Ahab is a smarmy frat boy pirate and Beowulf (the starting point of ALL ENGLISH LITERATURE) is some asshole killed in a flashback to retroactively ruin an original character.

Ok that ran away from me. Umm. I went into a trance and the Commentator's Keyboard started typing on its own? 😁

[Shanna Marie]

8 hours ago, Speakeasy said:

No, in seriousness the fact she was later all sad because she hadn't made a move on Aurora really bugged me. Honour is a big theme of her movie and I think it's done in a pretty good way. How honourable would it be to break up her friends' relationship (and a ménage a trois doesn't seem to be on the table or she wouldn't have to leave... Funnily enough there's a story in the Arabian Nights, featuring a Chinese princess, where that is the happy ending) because of her own feelings? And she regrets NOT hurting her friends like that and has spent YEARS sulking about it?

Yes! This! This has always bugged me. Philip was her friend and comrade in arms before she met Aurora. She was helping him on his quest to find his fiancee, who turned out to be his magically proven True Love, since his kiss broke her sleeping curse. Even considering making a move on her friend's fiancee after helping him find her goes against everything the character of Mulan was supposed to stand for. She would have suffered nobly in silence rather than do something to hurt her friend. I'm not sure she would have even let herself consider falling in love with Aurora in the first place. She'd have been totally off-limits, especially while Philip was out and they were trying to save him.

[Camera One]

Has anyone watched the CBS All-Access series "Tell me a Story"?  It's a "psychological thriller".  The first season interweaves "The Three Little Pigs", "Little Red Riding Hood" and "Hansel & Gretel" set in current-day NYC.  The show has already been renewed for Season 2 featuring "Beauty and the Beast", "Sleeping Beauty" and "Cinderella", set in Nashville.

Season 1 features the actress who played Jacinda as a modern-day Gretel.  There's also Michael Raymond-James playing a lowlife thief (typecast much?).

I was reading this review and it does seem too bleak for me.

Quote

With opening credits that show Little Red Riding Hood being raped by the Big Bad Wolf, “Tell Me a Story” is about as fun and understated as you might expect. The new CBS All Access series from Kevin Williamson, master of dark and icky shows like “Stalker” and “The Following,” attempts to twist classic fairy tales into his dark and icky mindset (never mind that these stories are already pretty grim). When viewed through their fairy-tale origins, the tales are laughably contrived. As standalone stories, they’re as ugly as they are trite.

For us fairy tale fans, it's usually this dark and "edgy" crap, or juvenile Disney Channel fluff.  It's so tiring.

[Shanna Marie]

On 12/8/2019 at 2:16 PM, Camera One said:

For us fairy tale fans, it's usually this dark and "edgy" crap, or juvenile Disney Channel fluff.  It's so tiring.

Yes! That's a big part of why I liked this series and stuck with it until the bitter (oh so bitter) end. It's one of the very few things that plays with fairytales in a way that falls between the tween-oriented Disney Channel stuff and the dark and edgy reinterpretations. It's for adults but still fun (sometimes), and at least pretended to be about hope (even if they had a strange idea of what that looked like).

[KingOfHearts]

At least in earlier seasons, Once Upon a Time had a great tone with wide appeal. The writers could do various things with it, both riding on dark or light themes, without sacrificing the overall coherency. Ultimately, it had a central idea that everything eventually tied into. (HOPE) It was an excelient way to market Disney properties without coming off as too childish or too mature. For the most part, the showrunners did well with the tone. It was in S4 when things started to become overly bleak. There were problems before, but in S4, every episode seemed to have this dark cloud hanging over it.

[Camera One]

1 hour ago, KingOfHearts said:

It was in S4 when things started to become overly bleak. 

You must mean dark.  This show is dark but NEVER bleak.

Seriously speaking, 4B was bleak because it was difficult to cheer for anyone.  In 4A, you had the "Frozen" folks banding together with the show's protagonists.  In 4B, you had multitudes of villains including the Queens of Darkness, Rumple, The Author, Lily and Zarian.  You couldn't cheer for former heroes like the eggnappers.  Then, in 5A, Dark Swan put a cloak of depression over everything and 5B was set in the Underworld, so you could only be so cheery in that setting.  And of course Season 6 goes without saying,

Though thinking back, parts of 2B, 3A and 3B were pretty stifling and depressing too when the villains had the upper hand and the heroes always seemed trapped by the circumstances.

I was just reading about the announced Disney + spinoff movie based around Prince Anders from the live-action "Aladdin" movie.

It's a strange choice... I thought that character was very forgettable, and he wasn't very funny with that over-the-top accent.  I couldn't imagine what the plot would be in a movie all about him.

Edited December 10, 2019 by Camera One

[tennisgurl]

On 12/8/2019 at 3:16 PM, Camera One said:

For us fairy tale fans, it's usually this dark and "edgy" crap, or juvenile Disney Channel fluff.  It's so tiring.

You know, as distasteful and tired as I find a lot of these "OMG we are so dark and edgy!" shows and story lines, at least they actually know that they're doing things that are very serious, dark, and tragic, even if they dont handle them particularly well. Once just kept awkwardly bumbling into rape, genocide, mass murder, abuse, and all kinds of horrific things that can and do happen in the real world to real people, and then just ignoring them, or acting like WE were the idiots for seeing what is actually going on in their show, but refusing to acknowledge or deal with, and doubling down on it with loads of white washing and victim blaming and even greater horrors. I mean, how many shows have written in this many rapes accidentally?!

Edited December 10, 2019 by tennisgurl

[Speakeasy]

14 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

 I mean, how many shows have written in this many rapes accidentally?!

I don't know what the numbers are like for other shows but I wouldn't be surprised if it was 'more than you'd think' depending on which ones your counting, of course because technically Storybrooke and Hyperion Heights were full of people who were presumably having sex without fully informed consent. 

Lots of shows also have a bad record of making rape jokes without thinking it through.

The way people react to consent and agency issues is pretty interesting, so in S7 fir instance I saw a lot of RAGE about the violation of Wish Hook and the next sentence people saying 'I wish Henry would pair up with Ivy instead of his annoying wife'-i was definitely all for Henvy BUT I do realise that the woman who kidnapped and poisoned him, terrorised and broke up his family and inflicted traumatic false memories on him getting him into bed with Henry while she knew and he didn't would be worse, SO MUCH worse, than a woman Hook had never met pretending to be another woman he'd never met and for their liaison to be other than just 'getting out of tower/killing dark one celebration sex'. The difference is that Hook-both versions- is a more popular and interesting character than Henry, and Ivy was a more interesting and sympathetic character than Gothel.

[Shanna Marie]

19 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

I mean, how many shows have written in this many rapes accidentally?!

Grimm actually managed to do one that was worse than anything in OUAT. The villain did a shapeshifting spell to make her look like the hero's girlfriend to have sex with him and take away his powers. She got pregnant and had his baby. In order to get his powers back, they had to do some kind of spell on his girlfriend that turned her temporarily into the villain, and he then had to have sex with her. But there was a side effect of that spell that turned the girlfriend into the same kind of magical witch monster that the villain was, and she went all villainous. Eventually she stopped with the villainy and worked for the good guys, but she was totally altered and no longer the same person. The villain (who ended up turning good) and the hero ended up falling in love and raising their rape baby together. At least Once didn't have anyone ending up with his rapist and didn't turn the rape victim's significant other into a villain to clear the path for the rapist. (The one consolation in Grimm is that the actors playing the hero and his original girlfriend ended up married to each other in real life.)

4 hours ago, Speakeasy said:

The way people react to consent and agency issues is pretty interesting, so in S7 fir instance I saw a lot of RAGE about the violation of Wish Hook and the next sentence people saying 'I wish Henry would pair up with Ivy instead of his annoying wife'

I think most of the wishing for Henry and Ivy to pair up came before we knew the full story, before we knew Ivy was "awake," that she was the one behind the curse, and that she'd poisoned Henry to do it. And because they were so vague about the relationship in the flashbacks, it was also a while before we had confirmation that Henry and Ella were actually married and that Lucy really was Henry's daughter. Once we knew about Ivy, it became more of a hypothetical thing -- if they had done things differently, this pairing might have been interesting. I don't think too many people wanted Henry and Ivy together under the actual circumstances once they were known. It was more like "What if it turned out that Henry didn't actually get together with Murderella and that epilogue to Henry's book was misleading, and if Ivy got over her evil before the curse, and it was someone else behind the curse." So, more that the two actors/characters had more chemistry than the other pairing had, so they should have written it all differently, not so much that these two characters as they were should have got together. It was creepy when Ivy did put the moves on Henry, knowing that he was her sister's husband.

[Speakeasy]

2 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

Grimm actually managed to do one that was worse than anything in OUAT. The villain did a shapeshifting spell to make her look like the hero's girlfriend to have sex with him and take away his powers. She got pregnant and had his baby. In order to get his powers back, they had to do some kind of spell on his girlfriend that turned her temporarily into the villain, and he then had to have sex with her. But there was a side effect of that spell that turned the girlfriend into the same kind of magical witch monster that the villain was, and she went all villainous. Eventually she stopped with the villainy and worked for the good guys, but she was totally altered and no longer the same person. The villain (who ended up turning good) and the hero ended up falling in love and raising their rape baby together. At least Once didn't have anyone ending up with his rapist and didn't turn the rape victim's significant other into a villain to clear the path for the rapist. (The one consolation in Grimm is that the actors playing the hero and his original girlfriend ended up married to each other in real life.)

🤪

Wow.

2 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

I think most of the wishing for Henry and Ivy to pair up came before we knew the full story, before we knew Ivy was "awake," that she was the one behind the curse, and that she'd poisoned Henry to do it. And because they were so vague about the relationship in the flashbacks, it was also a while before we had confirmation that Henry and Ella were actually married and that Lucy really was Henry's daughter. Once we knew about Ivy, it became more of a hypothetical thing -- if they had done things differently, this pairing might have been interesting. I don't think too many people wanted Henry and Ivy together under the actual circumstances once they were known. It was more like "What if it turned out that Henry didn't actually get together with Murderella and that epilogue to Henry's book was misleading, and if Ivy got over her evil before the curse, and it was someone else behind the curse." So, more that the two actors/characters had more chemistry than the other pairing had, so they should have written it all differently, not so much that these two characters as they were should have got together. It was creepy when Ivy did put the moves on Henry, knowing that he was her sister's husband.

Hmm. At the least I've definitely seen fanfics pairing or pre-pairing them even with events as per the series. I quite liked the idea because it would be an interstingly twisted story of he fell for her despite everything... But maybe a bit too bleak for this show. 

[Shanna Marie]

23 minutes ago, Speakeasy said:

Hmm. At the least I've definitely seen fanfics pairing or pre-pairing them even with events as per the series.

I was talking more about this forum. Fanfic world is an entirely different universe that I'm not quite brave enough to enter unless I have a solid recommendation from someone I trust. People often work out issues via fanfic, so there can be some pretty disturbing stuff that may or may not be an actual endorsement of the behavior.

[Camera One]

10 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

I think most of the wishing for Henry and Ivy to pair up came before we knew the full story, before we knew Ivy was "awake," that she was the one behind the curse, and that she'd poisoned Henry to do it. 

I was trying to go back and remember when this period was, and I think it was mostly after the Halloween episode (ep 4, "Beauty"), which was when Henry and Ivy shared a subplot for the first time and this episode made it seem like Ivy was actually human inside.

It was at the end of the following episode (ep 5, "Greenbacks") when we find out Ivy was awake.

And then, one episode later (ep 6, "Wake Up Call"), we saw Regina teaching Drizella magic and that was when we saw Drizella murdering a prince and vowing to enact the Dark Curse.

So it was a one or two-week window maybe?  At least for me, that's when I could no longer sympathesize with Ivy.

[Speakeasy]

19 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

I was talking more about this forum. Fanfic world is an entirely different universe that I'm not quite brave enough to enter unless I have a solid recommendation from someone I trust. People often work out issues via fanfic, so there can be some pretty disturbing stuff that may or may not be an actual endorsement of the behavior.

A lot of my understanding of the fandom comes from what I clean from fsnfics and the occasional glance at Tumblr, plus this forum, so I might have a skewed view. And when I say fanfic, I get as much from the tags on AO3 as from the stories themselves.

I think I made a conscious effort to sympathise with Ivy more because the character had potential and the actress was talented (and committed,like she was trying to bring her character to life) and almost in spite of her storyline.

I tried to di the same with Jacinta but that was a bit more if a stretch because there is just so little to latch on to.

Oh... Back on the actual theme if the thread; has anyone seen this new show, and if they have, is Ramirez any good in it? I am genuinely curious to know if shes bad in general or if she just couldn't do anything with Jacinda Vidrio.

[Shanna Marie]

13 hours ago, Camera One said:

I was trying to go back and remember when this period was, and I think it was mostly after the Halloween episode (ep 4, "Beauty"), which was when Henry and Ivy shared a subplot for the first time and this episode made it seem like Ivy was actually human inside.

Yep, that was pretty much when we were pondering the possibility, after seeing her thaw somewhat over searching for Lucy, and seeing how she and Henry interacted. At that time, we also hadn't seen any of Henry and Murderella in the past other than her hitting him and stealing his bike and then contemplating killing the old man instead of him, so Ivy actually looked like a better option than Murderella at that time. It might actually have been a fun twist to make us think Henry got with Cinderella, only to find out that the wicked stepsister was his real true love, and the curse had separated them and turned her wicked again.

They did absolutely nothing with the Cinderella story. Murderella could have been any random fairy tale character.

[Camera One]

An article about a feminist retelling of "Snow White" by a father in Berlin. 

Quote

Father fed-up with Snow White's anti-feminist message rewrites the fairytale with a VERY woke twist - including women dwarfs and NO happily ever after

• Stephan Kalinski, from Berlin, has re-written Snow White for today's children
• Wanted to empower his own daughter by giving fairy tales a feminist message 
• Created ethnically diverse seven dwarfs and introduces gender parity to story
• The Prince and Snow White are just friends and go travel the world together 

I wonder if Henry met this version of Snow White in the nearby Wokechanted Forest?  Disney+ needs to buy this adaptation and use it for a Season 8 revival.

Edited December 13, 2019 by Camera One