OUAT vs. Other Fairy Tales: Compare & Contrast

[Camera One]

I finished reading "The Phantom of the Opera" book, and while the story was streamlined and given more structure, I think the original Broadway musical retained the key elements. 

The Phantom pretending to be the Angel of Music, the underground tunnel, the lake, Raoul knowing Christine as a child, Christine visiting her father's grave, a masked ball, a secret engagement, etc., all those elements were in the book, though in a different order, and in a more unfocused story with a bunch of other elements.

As expected, the sequel musical derived absolutely nothing from the books.  

Book Spoilers below.

The book Phantom was even more of a diabolical psycho than the musical Phantom.  He was mainly just obsessed with Christine, and even though he was writing an opera, he didn't attempt to get it performed.  I think the change to have that in the musical made sense, considering it was a musical and made Christine's disappearance more dramatic.

Christine was definitely fearful of The Phantom when he kidnapped her, and I felt she had a bit more agency in the book than in the musical.  We also saw a bit more from Raoul's POV.  He was not as confident as he was in the musical.  There was no real plan to catch the Phantom, which I think was an understandable addition to provide a more clearcut climax in Act II.

I was surprised that the ending was portrayed relatively faithfully in that Christine did let the Phantom kiss her (except it was on the forehead), and that human connection (the Phantom's first kiss) caused him to allow Christine and Raoul to leave.  But it was clear Christine was desperate to save Raoul.  And she knew The Phantom was very unstable, considering he intended to set off an explosion to kill everyone in the opera if she didn't agree to marry him.

In the book, there was actually a character called The Persian who saved The Phantom from death in India and he knew the Phantom's secrets (and was scared of him).  So in the original musical, they combined that with the character of Madame Giry, who in the book was solely a messenger for the Phantom.  

Edited April 26, 2020 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

If it helps restore your faith in humanity, Love Never Dies is getting harshly criticized in a thread on the Concellation Facebook Group (it's sort of an ongoing online science fiction convention, sometimes a parody of a science fiction convention, involving people who would normally be going to conventions if they hadn't all been cancelled). They're calling it "Paint Never Dries." There's much talk about the retcons and character assassination. It seems that it's generally accepted in the theater world that the whole thing is really about Andrew Lloyd Webber's obsession with Sarah Brightman. He wrote the original show for her, and they were married for a while, and I guess either she initiated the divorce or he did and regrets it. The sequel is taken from a novel, so he didn't write the story, but he did choose which story to tell in a musical, and it is interesting that it's about how the genius composer is the one the soprano really loves and she made a mistake marrying the other guy. That would explain a lot.

16 hours ago, Camera One said:

Raoul only found out in the middle of the show that he wasn't the boy's real father.  Yet even before that, he just barked at the kid and his wife, and chose to spend his entire time in a bar. 

I would think that there would be vibes he would pick up if his wife was secretly actually in love with someone else that would have affected their relationship. And even if he didn't know for certain the parentage of his son, surely he'd have noticed that he didn't see anything of himself in the kid. (Perhaps I'm projecting because I knew someone this happened to -- he learned that his wife had been cheating and that his son probably wasn't biologically his. He did divorce the mother, but he refused to get the kid's DNA tested and raised the kid as his own. But it was still pretty devastating when the realization started to hit after the baby was past the baby stage and starting to look like a person.)

16 hours ago, Camera One said:

Maybe they could become BFFs now and acknowledge that they were equally to blame for what happened.  Just like Regina and Snow were equally to blame for their feud.

Maybe that'll be the next musical, Raoul and the Phantom raising the kid together.

[Camera One]

Some of the songs from "Love Never Dies" did grow on me a bit after watching it performed.  The tough part is listening to them without thinking about the context within the messed up morality of the sequel.

I find it interesting that there are so many Phantom/Christine shippers on every Youtube video with the actor who played The Phantom in the Royal Albert Hall.  And some of them like to use the name of the Phantom from the original book, Erik, even though that version actually plotted a mass murder.  I'm getting some Regina vibes from this fandom.

If they wanted to make The Phantom more sympathetic in the original musical, I wonder why they had him murder the lead singer man when he took his place in "Don Juan Triumphant".  That didn't happen in the book.  He could have just tied him up or something. 

In the musical, I didn't get Madame Giry's whole "hand at the level of your eye" warning, and she was fearful that if Raoul didn't do that, he could be killed.  It's fully explained in the book and makes sense with The Persian knowing the dangers and secrets of the Phantom, but a weird mention in the musical with seemingly no explanation.

I read a few reviews of the book by musical fans and they all universally hate Raoul even more in the book.  I admit he was a bit frustrating with his jealousy and distrust of Christine with the Phantom (there is a lot more of that in the book because some chapters are from his POV), but it's totally understandable to me why he would feel that way.  

Edited April 26, 2020 by Camera One

[Camera One]

On 4/19/2020 at 10:44 AM, Shanna Marie said:

I'm not sure how Christine got pregnant by the Phantom. If it happened as part of his warped wedding when he took her down to his lair near the end of the show, then it was rape. If she consented and willingly had sex with him, then the pity kiss wouldn't have been enough to change his heart because he'd have already had loving contact. But any sex she had with him during the time he'd kidnapped her and forced her to wear a wedding dress couldn't have been truly consensual. So, it's rape no matter what happened. The other option would be that she cheated on Raoul after these events. They turn Raoul into the bad guy for being upset that his wife lied to him about who the father of the child he was raising as his was after she was either raped but still has feelings for her rapist or she cheated on him. That's a very OUAT energy.

I had the soundtrack on in the background while I was working today and I caught part of the lyrics of "Beneath a Moonless Sky".  The Phantom sings that before the wedding, Christine herself went to find him.  It was a moonless night so it was all dark when it all happened.  In the morning, the Phantom left first so she wouldn't see him, and Christine sings in the song that she would have declared her love to him but he was gone.  

It's hard to like the song anymore after that.

It is very OUAT that they would say Christine went back to the Phantom and cheated on Raoul, after that horrific night at the opera when he kidnapped her, murdered a man, and threatened to kill Raoul.  Just because he backed down, she thought it was True Love and came back later to find him again?  That's just sick.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

15 hours ago, Camera One said:

The Phantom sings that before the wedding, Christine herself went to find him.  It was a moonless night so it was all dark when it all happened.  In the morning, the Phantom left first so she wouldn't see him, and Christine sings in the song that she would have declared her love to him but he was gone.  

Eww. The people who weren't swooning romantically about the Phantom and Christine were saying that Christine was the only decent person in this show and could do better than either of the men, but this is pretty crappy on her part. She cheated on her fiance with the guy who tried to kill him and killed other people, then essentially treated Raoul like a consolation prize when the Phantom disappeared on her. No wonder Raoul started drinking. Even if he didn't know, she'd have surely shown it in the way she treated him.

15 hours ago, Camera One said:

Just because he backed down, she thought it was True Love and came back later to find him again?  That's just sick.

Yep, typical OUAT -- You stopped yourself from doing one bad thing after doing a bunch of other bad things. You're a hero! And I owe you a great debt because you didn't go through with that horrible thing you threatened to do to me.

[Camera One]

1 minute ago, Shanna Marie said:

Eww. The people who weren't swooning romantically about the Phantom and Christine were saying that Christine was the only decent person in this show and could do better than either of the men, but this is pretty crappy on her part. She cheated on her fiance with the guy who tried to kill him and killed other people, then essentially treated Raoul like a consolation prize when the Phantom disappeared on her. No wonder Raoul started drinking. Even if he didn't know, she'd have surely shown it in the way she treated him.

The lyricist made triply sure it couldn't be rape, and that it was her choice.  The Phantom's lyrics went "On that night just before you were wed / You came and found me where I hid / Don't you deny that you did".  

[daxx]

2 hours ago, Camera One said:

The lyricist made triply sure it couldn't be rape, and that it was her choice.  The Phantom's lyrics went "On that night just before you were wed / You came and found me where I hid / Don't you deny that you did".  

Very glad I skipped this one. Still not sure I can watch the original and enjoy it the same way I once did.

[Shanna Marie]

16 minutes ago, daxx said:

Still not sure I can watch the original and enjoy it the same way I once did.

Think of it as someone's AU fanfic that has nothing to do with the original. The real characters didn't do these things. It was just in that fanfic -- which is actually kind of true, as the sequel was based on a book that was essentially fanfic. It has the same legitimacy as any of the other Phantom fanfic, whether it's published or just on an Internet archive. The only real difference is that the same person who wrote the musical based on the original book also wrote a musical based on the fanfic.

[Speakeasy]

I finished The Originals recently and a few things made me think of OUAT season 7

Some spoilers but I'm trying to be vague

First- it's set in New Orleans' picturesque French Quarter, though it's filmed in Georgia, and that made me think of how OUAT used a story set in New Orleans and essentially ignored any idea of using the place as inspiration (budget is a problem here, clearly)

Second- The series is a spin-off of 'the Vampire Diaries', using the world, characters and concepts from that series. I've never seen it but I was able to follow the show perfectly well, which contrasts with how confusing OUAT S7 was to long term viewers.

Third-protag morals, yo! Klaus Mikaelson makes Regina Mills look like a sweet little choir girl, but I think, at least in the first 3 seasons, the writing is pretty clear on the fact that he and his family are protagonists, not heroes, and people react to him coming into a room more or less the same way they would to a grenade with the pin pulled out.

Fourth-despite playing one of the (in my view) few genuinely good and well intentioned characters on the show, Yusuf Gatewood (Vincent) would have made a good live action Dr Facilier: he looks the part a lot more than the OUAT actor and I think he could have played an occult swindler beautifully while being very distinct from the cartoon version.

And Also-edit-a season 2 villain borrows from a number of fairy tales, at one point she's described as inspiring 'the witches of Grimm lore', but the most obvious link is probably Mother Gothel (/the witch from Rapunzel). 

Spoiler

She's played by Claudia Black, who is wonderful.

 

Edited April 28, 2020 by Speakeasy
And also

[Writing Wrongs]

Disney is doing a live action remake of "Hercules" now. Every time I hear about a new one from them, I can't help but compare it to Once's versions. I liked their Herc.

[Camera One]

1 hour ago, Writing Wrongs said:

Disney is doing a live action remake of "Hercules" now. Every time I hear about a new one from them, I can't help but compare it to Once's versions. I liked their Herc.

I liked Herc on "Once" too.  I'm surprised they made Meg such a non-kickass female, though, considering how they usually write.  She's such a unique character in the animated movie that it was strange to see her playing the same role as a bland extra.

[daxx]

Tv shows are always claiming to write “a love letter to the fans” I’ve never felt any accomplished that until last night. I’m still crying over Parks and Rec’s special. 
it was a perfect 1/2 hour of television.

i laughed, I cried, I smiled until my cheeks hurt.

[Shanna Marie]

1 hour ago, daxx said:

I’m still crying over Parks and Rec’s special. 
it was a perfect 1/2 hour of television.

i laughed, I cried, I smiled until my cheeks hurt.

Wasn't that just lovely? That was the most I've smiled in weeks. And they did a good job of coming up with reasons why characters who should have been together were separate (since the actors had to be), then took advantage of the opportunity to use actors who could be together playing characters you'd expect to be separate (I think that was the part that made me laugh the most).

[Camera One]

2 hours ago, daxx said:

Tv shows are always claiming to write “a love letter to the fans”

I've never watched "Parks and Recreation" but this is so true.  Series finales are often billed as "For the fans!", but it never actually feels like it, or maybe it's for fans who are looking for other things in the show.

[Shanna Marie]

This week's National Theatre at Home offering is the Benedict Cumberbatch/Jonny Lee Miller production of Frankenstein. It's very close to the book version of the story, so not at all like the old-timey horror movie version they went with on OUAT. They have both versions, with the two actors switching roles. I believe I prefer the version with Miller as the creature and Cumberbatch as the doctor. It has a lot more energy and seems to move along faster (and is several minutes shorter, so it really does move faster). Oddly enough, I could understand the dialogue from Miller's creature a lot better, and I used to have to use captions to watch Elementary because I couldn't understand a word he said, between the whispering and the mumbling. I guess that was a character choice because he's certainly capable of projecting and enunciating while playing a creature learning to be human. Meanwhile, I think Cumberbatch does a better job of showing just how arrogant and unhinged the doctor was. It's only about two hours long (a little longer with Cumberbatch as the creature, a little shorter with Miller as the creature) and is definitely worth a watch. I believe it's up until Thursday.

[andromeda331]

4 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

This week's National Theatre at Home offering is the Benedict Cumberbatch/Jonny Lee Miller production of Frankenstein. It's very close to the book version of the story, so not at all like the old-timey horror movie version they went with on OUAT. They have both versions, with the two actors switching roles. I believe I prefer the version with Miller as the creature and Cumberbatch as the doctor. It has a lot more energy and seems to move along faster (and is several minutes shorter, so it really does move faster). Oddly enough, I could understand the dialogue from Miller's creature a lot better, and I used to have to use captions to watch Elementary because I couldn't understand a word he said, between the whispering and the mumbling. I guess that was a character choice because he's certainly capable of projecting and enunciating while playing a creature learning to be human. Meanwhile, I think Cumberbatch does a better job of showing just how arrogant and unhinged the doctor was. It's only about two hours long (a little longer with Cumberbatch as the creature, a little shorter with Miller as the creature) and is definitely worth a watch. I believe it's up until Thursday.

I had to do that on Elementary too. I didn't that was part of his character. 

[Camera One]

On 5/2/2020 at 7:32 PM, Shanna Marie said:

This week's National Theatre at Home offering is the Benedict Cumberbatch/Jonny Lee Miller production of Frankenstein.

Thanks for the suggestion.  Watching it, all I could think of was how brilliant Adam and Eddy were in adapting the story so well, distilling the real essence of the story and even deepening it in the character of Dr. Whale and of course exploring the question of whether evil is born or made and whether the true Beast was indeed Dr. Whale or Rumple or Daniel the Zombie or Regina or Snow White.

I was just kidding there, of course.  I've tried to read the book before, and I could never get very far, so I'm glad I watched this production.  Maybe now I can go back and the book would be more approachable.  

I watched the version with Miller as The Creature fully, and then bits and pieces of Cumberbatch as The Creature.  It was a bit tedious to watch at the beginning with the character flailing around and learning to watch and such, though both actors displayed a lot of physicality.  I found Miller more likeable as the monster, and actually, I liked his Doctor too, though I also liked Cumberbatch as the Doctor.  The story was sad with all the senseless deaths, but it does raise a lot of thought-provoking existential questions.

I think I watched half of one episode of "Elementary", but I didn't like the modern-day setting, so I didn't continue.  Maybe I'll try it again one day.

[Shanna Marie]

15 hours ago, Camera One said:

It was a bit tedious to watch at the beginning with the character flailing around and learning to watch and such, though both actors displayed a lot of physicality. 

I think most of the five-minute difference between versions was that Miller spent a lot less time flailing and writhing at the beginning. I watched the Cumberbatch as creature version first and almost turned it off because I was afraid it was just going to be some artsy performance piece that was nothing but the flailing and writhing. It seemed to go on forever. But it picked up a lot once he started talking.

15 hours ago, Camera One said:

I found Miller more likeable as the monster, and actually, I liked his Doctor too, though I also liked Cumberbatch as the Doctor.

I think Miller's Doctor was maybe too likeable. He came across as more "human," like he was a head-in-the-clouds academic who hadn't quite thought it all through but who wasn't that bad a guy, and I'm not sure that's the impression we're supposed to get. Cumberbatch made him a lot more cold and arrogant. Like, all the issues with the fiancee came across as Miller just being a bit clueless about women while Cumberbatch was more cold and distant. My impression from the book was that it was a cautionary tale, and the doctor was not a good guy.

I kept being distracted by all the mentions of Ingolstadt because I lived in Germany as a preteen (military dad), and the main thing I think of for Ingolstadt is traffic jams because it seemed like there was always some kind of wreck or other holdup at "the Ingolstadt triangle" on the traffic reports on Armed Forces Radio. I also found it amusing in the book when that's where Victor went to school. Maybe that explains the terrible Autobahn traffic in that area. There's a creature wandering out onto the highway, causing a chain-reaction pile-up.

[Camera One]

On 5/7/2020 at 2:47 PM, Shanna Marie said:

I think Miller's Doctor was maybe too likeable. He came across as more "human," like he was a head-in-the-clouds academic who hadn't quite thought it all through but who wasn't that bad a guy, and I'm not sure that's the impression we're supposed to get. Cumberbatch made him a lot more cold and arrogant. Like, all the issues with the fiancee came across as Miller just being a bit clueless about women while Cumberbatch was more cold and distant. My impression from the book was that it was a cautionary tale, and the doctor was not a good guy.

I finally finished the book, and it's interesting to compare with this play.  Because the book was mostly from the point of view of the Doctor, I found him to be a sympathetic character.  He was the one telling the cautionary tale, he regretted what he did, was wracked by remorse, and he was overall a good guy who made a huge mistake (I got the sense he was a head-in-the-clouds academic) and did not make good decisions thereafter.  The Creature was also more malicious with acts not included in this play like framing an innocent woman for murder and killing the doctor's best friend.

I assumed the book was going to be all about who was the bigger monster - the doctor or the Creature, but I think the book was more about how neither of them were monsters, but was more a criticism of society and human "progress".

Still, I was reading internet comments on the book, and the majority of people do like the Creature more.  The play was written from the POV of the Creature, taken from a few chapters in the middle of the book, when the Creature described all that happened to him before he killed the doctor's little brother.   While I do sympathesize with the Creature for how cruel humans were to him and I understand why he turned out the way he did, his horrific deeds made it impossible for me to root for him or feel sorry for him.  

It's interesting how society has simplified the story to a crazy mad scientist and a creepy dumb monster who can't talk.  For some reason, "Once" imposed onto the story sibling rivalry and paternal disapproval.

I was watching part of the "Sound of Music" and I started to wonder about what it would be like if A&E had added a "Fictional World War II European World".  Would you find Maria and the Von Trapp children there (I know they were based on real people but this fictional version of them).  Along with the kids from Narnia?  

And then Narnia world.  Would Regina be friends with Jadis, the White Witch.  They could commiserate about manipulating children and turning living organisms to stone.

[Shanna Marie]

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

It's interesting how society has simplified the story to a crazy mad scientist and a creepy dumb monster who can't talk. 

Ironically, in a lot of respects, Young Frankenstein comes closer to being true to the book than most movie adaptations have been. Although it's surrounded by Mel Brooks silliness, there are a lot of scenes right out of the book. It's kind of like how the Muppet Christmas Carol is more true to the book than most other adaptations. In being silly, they still managed to capture the heart of what the story was really about in a way that more serious adaptations tend to miss.

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

I was watching part of the "Sound of Music" and I started to wonder about what it would be like if A&E had added a "Fictional World War II European World".  Would you find Maria and the Von Trapp children there (I know they were based on real people but this fictional version of them).  Along with the kids from Narnia?  

And then Narnia world.  Would Regina be friends with Jadis, the White Witch.  They could commiserate about manipulating children and turning living organisms to stone.

The way Once would have used the Narnia kids would have been to have them run into one of our characters from the present-day story in a way that would have put them in the 80s. A viewer would mention on Twitter that the Narnia books were set during WWII, and A&E would tweet about how they were really from a "WWII Europe World," so they could be from WWII and still run into present-day characters. And I wouldn't have been surprised if they'd made it so that Narnia was another kingdom in the Enchanted Forest world, and the White Witch was actually Regina on her winter vacation (because Lana said that was her favorite character and she'd always wanted to play her). The Pevensies and Aslan didn't actually defeat her. She just chose to go home because her vacation wasn't fun anymore and she had a lead on where Snow was hiding out.

[Camera One]

58 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

And I wouldn't have been surprised if they'd made it so that Narnia was another kingdom in the Enchanted Forest world

That would have been so disappointing!  Narnia was such a rich world with memorable locales and characters, with so many books to source from.  But that would have been straight up A&E's alley, given how they squandered the use of Oz, Greek mythology, heck most of the Disney movies, much less Grimm or Perrault fairy tales or folk stories from around the world.

Quote

The way Once would have used the Narnia kids would have been to have them run into one of our characters from the present-day story in a way that would have put them in the 80s. A viewer would mention on Twitter that the Narnia books were set during WWII, and A&E would tweet about how they were really from a "WWII Europe World," so they could be from WWII and still run into present-day characters.

Ha!  That would definitely have been another case of "To be answered on Twitter..."

Or the Narnia kids would be running around the Enchanted Forest and Belle chose to protect an inanimate object over them, or Regina tries to adopt them after trying to murder them, and that's another case where Adam on Twitter would explain they're from a Very Special Fictional WWII Realm™, and that's how they could have been in the EF in the oft-visited Bandit Snow years.

58 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

And I wouldn't have been surprised if they'd made it so that Narnia was another kingdom in the Enchanted Forest world, and the White Witch was actually Regina on her winter vacation (because Lana said that was her favorite character and she'd always wanted to play her). The Pevensies and Aslan didn't actually defeat her. She just chose to go home because her vacation wasn't fun anymore and she had a lead on where Snow was hiding out.

They could have done a Christmas episode where in the present-day, Regina feels excluded from the Charming Christmas festivities, while in the past, we see Regina as The White Queen kidnapping Father Christmas and using Edmund as a reindeer, while her father tries to convince her to let the captives go.

I wonder how "wise" Aslan would be on "Once".

Edited May 24, 2020 by Camera One

[Speakeasy]

Replied to the suggestions about Narnia in the Should Have Thread

[Shanna Marie]

The "shows must go on" musical streaming this weekend is The Wiz, and if it's the production I think it is, it was actually pretty good (I've seen a better one live, but this was leaps and bounds ahead of the horrible movie version). I had the original cast album when I was a kid (on vinyl because I'm old) and absolutely love the music.

Compare and contrast with the Once depiction of the Oz story. Which is the better Wicked Witch of the West song, "Wicked Always Wins" or "Don't Nobody Bring Me No Bad News"?

[Camera One]

7 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

musical streaming this weekend is The Wiz

I haven't watched the movie, though I listened to the soundtrack once (I think the original production?) and I didn't really like the music on first listen.  Sometimes, watching the actual show makes the music more enjoyable, so I decided to watch this production.  I still didn't find the music memorable, but I think all the performers were quite strong.  This is one of those musicals where it's more about the singing and the dancing since there's very little plot or urgency.

It was interesting how they adapted this "Wizard of Oz".  I mean there's no way they could top that fabulous Dorothy from "Once". 

All kidding aside, I thought it was interesting how this Dorothy had just moved to Kansas after her parents died, so she really was struggling with the concept of home.  I didn't feel the musical itself addressed that very well, but it was a nice concept.  At the end of the day, the whole "Home is not where you live, it's where you love" message is pretty much exactly the same point as in the "Once" episode.  

I guess the other theme is running away from your problems, which also applied to the Wizard.

When the Wicked Witch of the West came on, she totally gave me Regina vibes with that costume.  She got a song or two, but the show was hardly about her.  What a surprise!

Zelena's song was all about Rumple and Regina than about her.  It's almost like she's a convenient foil for those two characters.  Oh wait a minute...

Edited June 13, 2020 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

On 6/13/2020 at 1:43 AM, Camera One said:

I haven't watched the movie, though I listened to the soundtrack once (I think the original production?) and I didn't really like the music on first listen.  Sometimes, watching the actual show makes the music more enjoyable, so I decided to watch this production.  I still didn't find the music memorable, but I think all the performers were quite strong.  This is one of those musicals where it's more about the singing and the dancing since there's very little plot or urgency.

It's been at least about 15-20 years since I saw it on stage, but I'm pretty sure this production was really stripped-down. I know it's missing at least two songs. This ran under 2 hours, and the stage version comes in at around 2 and a half hours. In addition to cutting some songs, I think they only kept the dialogue that gives context to the songs, so there's some story missing. Having to do it in short chunks for commercial breaks (since this was originally done live on NBC) really messed with the flow. I think this is also a show that requires a live audience for its energy. One thing I do like is that they keep updating it. It's not stuck in the 70s. Each version I've seen has been updated slightly with pop culture and technological references (like the iPad they used in this production), and the arrangements and orchestration have even been subtly altered along the way, so the music seems a little more current and not stuck in 1975. I believe the Wicked Witch has a bigger role on stage. It's not just her big song and then she's instantly killed. The last production I saw (a touring show, and if I'm not mistaken, Stephanie Mills was doing her farewell tour as Dorothy, since on stage you can get away with playing a teenager into your 40s), the Wicked Witch brought the house down. She did a lot of ad libbing and improvising. She's still not the main character or focus of the show, but it is a showpiece role. In the stage show with a live audience, it comes across kind of like a gospel number in a Black church service, with call and response and the leader whipping up the emotions of the "congregation." She'll even get the audience involved and get them to join in and respond, so she'll say something like, "Don't you bring me," and get the audience to shout "No bad news!"

I think what I love about the music is that so much of it is so joyful. "Ease on Down the Road" is a lot of fun, and "Everybody Rejoice" just makes me so happy. I also think they did a good job of taking an early 20th century book and adapting it to a different time and culture. They do mostly follow the beats from the 1939 movie, but they also use stuff from the book that didn't make it into the movie, like not combining the witch of the north and witch of the south into one character.

The performances in this were really good. I thought Amber Riley might have been the weak link. Her singing was strong, but her acting struck me as being kind of high school theater, where she sounded like she was saying lines and trying to "act." I was a little disappointed in Queen Latifah at first because she seemed so stiff, which is totally unlike her, but then she was so different after the big reveal that I think that might have been a deliberate acting choice. She was playing someone who was putting on an act, so of course it was stiff and unnatural.

On 6/13/2020 at 1:43 AM, Camera One said:

When the Wicked Witch of the West came on, she totally gave me Regina vibes with that costume.

Yeah, that was very Regina, attitude, look, and all. But I think we were supposed to think she was evil, not sympathize with her. Weird.

On 6/13/2020 at 1:43 AM, Camera One said:

Zelena's song was all about Rumple and Regina than about her.  It's almost like she's a convenient foil for those two characters.  Oh wait a minute...

Yeah, funny how that works. Not to mention, when Zelena had her song laying out her main character trait and her history and goals, she'd already been on the show for three seasons. It wasn't like the witch here, singing her song in the moment she's first introduced -- and I think we even get more insight into her psyche than we did with Zelena. It's nice having the occasional villain who's just out and out nasty who doesn't have a sob story and who isn't a victim.

[Camera One]

1 hour ago, Shanna Marie said:

It's been at least about 15-20 years since I saw it on stage, but I'm pretty sure this production was really stripped-down. I know it's missing at least two songs. This ran under 2 hours, and the stage version comes in at around 2 and a half hours. In addition to cutting some songs, I think they only kept the dialogue that gives context to the songs, so there's some story missing.

That is good to know.  The ending felt really abrupt too.  

Quote

Each version I've seen has been updated slightly with pop culture and technological references (like the iPad they used in this production)

I sort of cringed with the iPad thing.  I get it was supposed to be funny but it took me out of this fantasy world.  

Quote

I thought Amber Riley might have been the weak link. Her singing was strong, but her acting struck me as being kind of high school theater, where she sounded like she was saying lines and trying to "act." 

I guess I was just used to her from "Glee".  I figured she was just trying to keep the character comical by showing she was incompetent, awkward and not very smart.

Quote

I think what I love about the music is that so much of it is so joyful. "Ease on Down the Road" is a lot of fun, and "Everybody Rejoice" just makes me so happy.

I've had the musical on in the background while working since I watched it on Friday, and I'm starting to like the songs.  I liked Dorothy's relationship with Aunt Em at the beginning with the aunt's song.  I thought that was a nice way to deepen the characters a bit.  

I find it interesting how this Dorothy was choosing between Omaha and Kansas, while Emma was choosing NYC vs. Storybrooke.  Of course in the MGM movie, Dorothy knew where her home was but just didn't like it.

Quote

I also think they did a good job of taking an early 20th century book and adapting it to a different time and culture. They do mostly follow the beats from the 1939 movie, but they also use stuff from the book that didn't make it into the movie, like not combining the witch of the north and witch of the south into one character.

Yes, that's what I found quite clever, bringing it to the present.  Though they hardly used anything more from the book aside from not combining the witches of the North and South.

Quote

Yeah, that was very Regina, attitude, look, and all. But I think we were supposed to think she was evil, not sympathize with her. Weird.

She wasn't that evil at all.  She seemed to be just making them do chores.

Edited June 14, 2020 by Camera One

[Camera One]

I watched the "Peter Pan" musical.  It was a tad juvenile and dragged.  

But it did get me wondering.  Wendy's father's name was George and he was going on about efficiency, so what if Mr. Darling was also Mr. Banks.  Wendy's daughter was also called Jane.  There could have been a mash-up and the Darlings and the Banks were the same family visited by Peter Pan AND Mary Poppins.

I also considered what if Baelfire had lodged with the Darlings where his grandpa Peter Pan tried to find him, and then he tried to get away and lived with the Banks, where he was visited by his grandma Mary Poppins.  Maybe both of them were minions sent by Rumple to get Baelfire back to magical lands, but Baelfire didn't want to go back.  

I wasn't paying full attention but I think Peter Pan sang that he went back home once and he found another child sleeping in the bed and felt like he was replaced.  That would have been an interesting alternate backstory.  I suppose it could have been the trigger for him becoming "evil".  

Edited June 21, 2020 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

10 hours ago, Camera One said:

I wasn't paying full attention but I think Peter Pan sang that he went back home once and he found another child sleeping in the bed and felt like he was replaced.  That would have been an interesting alternate backstory.  I suppose it could have been the trigger for him becoming "evil".  

So he would've become Lotso from Toy Story 3?

[Shanna Marie]

10 hours ago, Camera One said:

I watched the "Peter Pan" musical.  It was a tad juvenile and dragged.

From what I've heard, that was a terrible production, so I didn't bother. I've seen Cathy Rigby doing it on stage a few times, and it can be a lot of fun, but it really is aimed at kids. I suspect the TV issue struck again, where the pacing was interrupted by commercial breaks.

10 hours ago, Camera One said:

I wasn't paying full attention but I think Peter Pan sang that he went back home once and he found another child sleeping in the bed and felt like he was replaced.  That would have been an interesting alternate backstory.  I suppose it could have been the trigger for him becoming "evil".  

That may make more sense than the "I don't want to be an adult, so I'll become a kid again and ditch my kid and hate him because he reminds me I'm an adult" backstory. And if they were going to use that backstory, they needed to make Neverland look a lot more fun. That was the whole point, that it was supposedly a paradise for boys, based on all the stuff that was in adventure stories, with pirates and Indians to fight, and fairies and mermaids to kind of flirt with and have fight over them, but not to the extent they'd actually have to have a relationship with them. But the Once Neverland was pretty boring, just camping in the woods. I suppose some of that was because the magic was dying, which was why they needed Henry's heart, but then there should have been at least one flashback from when it was a "fun" place (up to a point, since the whole idea was that it was a place that sounded good to kids but got old when they missed their homes). Show it back when Hook was there and the Lost Boys were fighting pirates for fun -- from the perspective of the Lost Boys so that it actually looks kind of like fun.

[Camera One]

So this Captain Hook tried to poison all the Lost Boys with a cake, so he and Regina could chat over poisoning people for fun.  

The dancing and singing pirates reminded me a little of the Hook song in the musical episode.  The Once musical song was more catchy than the ones in this old musical, at least on first listen.  I'm not a huge fan of sing-talking, which Captain Hook was doing in the musical.

Peter Pan said every time a child didn't believe, a fairy died.  So that would give incentive for Blue to find ways to communicate with the Land Without Magic to ensure that children believed.  In that case, maybe the Author is hired by Fairies to send stories to stimulate the imaginations of children in the Land Without Magic.  Maybe Merlin and Blue had an arrangement worked out, and then started clashing over the powers of the Author.   

Peter Pan and Mary Poppins could both be agents of Blue.  Maybe Peter Pan was granted the wish to stay a boy forever, and Tinkerbelle volunteered for the dangerous missions of heading into the World Without Magic.  Dorothy and Alice could be Blue's agents in Our World.

Edited June 21, 2020 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

8 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

Show it back when Hook was there and the Lost Boys were fighting pirates for fun -- from the perspective of the Lost Boys so that it actually looks kind of like fun.

But then we might've missed the flashback where Snow needed fake excalibur to believe in herself, or Pied Piper Pan.

[Shanna Marie]

I was reading a book by one of the founders of Pixar, and in the part that came after Disney and Pixar merged, when the heads of Pixar were put in charge of Disney Animation, it got into some of the development process behind Tangled that made me think of the way this show used the Rapunzel story. Apparently, they'd been trying to make a Rapunzel movie going all the way back to the days of Walt Disney, but the problem they ran into was that a girl stuck in a tower didn't provide a very dynamic premise for a movie. One of the concepts Eisner was playing with during his era had it starting with a woman in our world being send to a fairytale world, though I'm not sure what that had to do with Rapunzel. It was after the Pixar guys were put in charge and shook up Disney Animation to the point that the creative people there felt like they had the freedom to come up with ideas (from the sounds of things, Disney had become pretty oppressive) that the concept of Rapunzel having magic hair and being able to get out of the tower and have adventures started to be developed. There was some controversy about calling the movie Tangled instead of Rapunzel, but they felt like the movie was equally about Rapunzel and Flynn, so calling it Rapunzel would have been like calling Toy Story Buzz Lightyear -- though they did mention that the disappointing box office of The Princess and the Frog, which they suspected had something to do with boys not wanting to see a "princess" movie, had something to do with the decision, as well.

With the Once Rapunzel 1.0 we saw the problem of a story about someone who doesn't leave a tower. I'd almost prefer to ignore the existence of 2.0 as any kind of connection to Tangled Rapunzel.

The "boys don't want girl stuff" thing seems to be relatively recent, like with Frozen not being called something like The Snow Queen, and with the initial trailers being more about Sven and Olaf, like they were hiding that it was a "girl" movie. It doesn't seem to have hurt Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, or even The Little Mermaid to have "girl" titles. When I was little, I recall my male friends in kindergarten were perfectly happy to see the Disney movies. They didn't think of them as "girl" stuff, but then back in the Dark Ages they weren't shoving the "princess" marketing down our throats. I imagine that's a double-edged sword for Disney. They make a fortune in merchandising with the princess stuff, but it might turn boys away. I remember during the first Frozen wave that when I had Frozen stickers for my kindergarten choir, the girls mostly wanted Elsa or generic snowflake designs. The boys fought over Olaf and Sven (they didn't care about Kristoff), but when one boy took an Elsa sticker, the other boys made fun of him because that was for girls. Before I could jump in to say that all the stickers were for whoever wanted them, he said, "But Elsa's beautiful!" Then he added, "I want her to be my Mommy." I had the hardest time not laughing out loud.

[Camera One]

I actually didn't like "Tangled" very much as a movie (though I also didn't like "Frozen" very much either on first watch).  I wasn't a huge fan of Flynn or even Rapunzel, and Mother Gothel felt like a re-tread villain. 

I'm not sure why it was so difficult to adapt the Rapunzel story.  She could have found a way to escape herself and had adventures, going back at night to deceive the witch, maybe to find her origins.  She could have met her parents and befriended them without knowing they were her parents.  It didn't have to a love interest.  

It's weird but the whole "Tangled" title turned me off too, because I liked classic fairy tales and would have preferred a classic name.  I also missed the look of traditional animation.  

1 hour ago, Shanna Marie said:

With the Once Rapunzel 1.0 we saw the problem of a story about someone who doesn't leave a tower. I'd almost prefer to ignore the existence of 2.0 as any kind of connection to Tangled Rapunzel.

Considering 2.0 had Rapunzel turning into a vindinctive psycho murderer and someone impersonated her to rape Hook puts Victoria Belfrey squarely into the ignore category, LOL.

I think Rapunzel 1.0 could have been interesting if she hadn't been a throw-away one-off.  I'm not sure it was that great a match with what David was going through in that episode.  Though her fears of ruling reminds me of the recent discussion we had about Snow never getting that storyline.  

[Shanna Marie]

For a literal "fairy tale," the National Theatre production of A Midsummer Night's Dream that's streaming for one more day (the one with Gwendolyn Christie) is worth watching. They do some interesting staging that's hard to describe, but it's lots of little stages surrounded by the audience, so the cast interacts with the audience when they need to go from one stage to another. It's sort of modern in places, and they do some gender flipping (changing the roles of Oberon and Titania, so Oberon's the one who gets the prank played on him). I think this is the most I've ever laughed at a Shakespeare play. It really was laugh-out-loud funny.

[Speakeasy]

I recently watched The Man in the High Castle-there isn't really much overlap I suppose, but there is a theme of What Might Have Been-less with the world than with the characters and particularly 

Spoiler

John Smith, the main villain, is shown to be someone who could be a good man and who doesn't seem particularly cruel or vicious by inclination... But it also kind of questions how much a person's 'nature' or 'inclination' is really worth, since he does lots of awful shit regardless of whether he really truly believes in National Socialism.

If there's a Once character he matches at all it would be Rumplestiltskin* (oh, Robert Carlyle played Hitler once, so there's a link as well 😛) but none of them match him that closely. I don't think there was much of an exploration of what he -or the other villains- could have been if they'd taken a different route. I wonder if it would have been interesting to see an episode with a real alternate timeline, e.g. Rumple goes down the portal with his son, Regina runs away from her miserable marriage or Hook's brother doesn't get killed.

* For some reason I ended up wondering what the Once characters would be in a dystopic or nazified wotld- the Charmings are almost boringly obvious as resistance fighters who talk about Hope all the time, and Rumplestiltskin seems like he'd slap on an armband and 'heil' away as long as it secured him some power and the ability to protect the 1-3 people in the world he thinks have some value. Hook I can see as a partisan who's gone off the rails and just shoots everyone he thinks might be a collaborator. Emma, Regina and Henry were the only ones I couldn't decide on.

Edited July 1, 2020 by Speakeasy

[Camera One]

15 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

For a literal "fairy tale," the National Theatre production of A Midsummer Night's Dream that's streaming for one more day (the one with Gwendolyn Christie) is worth watching. They do some interesting staging that's hard to describe, but it's lots of little stages surrounded by the audience, so the cast interacts with the audience when they need to go from one stage to another. It's sort of modern in places, and they do some gender flipping (changing the roles of Oberon and Titania, so Oberon's the one who gets the prank played on him). I think this is the most I've ever laughed at a Shakespeare play. It really was laugh-out-loud funny.

Thanks for the motivation to try it out.  Shakespeare is a little tougher to watch and it just seemed so long, but I did have to read "A Midsummer Night's Dream" in high school, so I decided to give it a try.  I'm about an hour into it.  I am enjoying it, though it feels strange with the characters in modern clothing.  

If the Writers had done a half-season of Shakespearean world, it might be fun, but they would need to be way more intellectual than they actually were.  Heck, it seemed like they couldn't even be bothered to watch a Disney film from start to finish, much less any deeper source material.  

[Shanna Marie]

12 hours ago, Speakeasy said:

For some reason I ended up wondering what the Once characters would be in a dystopic or nazified wotld- the Charmings are almost boringly obvious as resistance fighters who talk about Hope all the time, and Rumplestiltskin seems like he'd slap on an armband and 'heil' away as long as it secured him some power and the ability to protect the 1-3 people in the world he thinks have some value. Hook I can see as a partisan who's gone off the rails and just shoots everyone he thinks might be a collaborator. Emma, Regina and Henry were the only ones I couldn't decide on.

The Charmings and Henry would be the kind of resistance "fighters" who don't do a lot of fighting -- they just hold meetings and talk about standing up for what they believe in, having hope, etc., maybe print some pamphlets and put up posters. Henry wants to get into the fight because he thinks that will make him a hero, but he takes unnecessary risks that put others in danger. Hook would be the partisan who started out idealistic, fighting for the cause, but then when someone he loved got killed, he went bitter and vindictive and takes a reckless "kill 'em all" approach, even willing to kill civilians in order to get to the occupiers. He'll blow up a cafe or a train in order to get at enemy soldiers, even if there are also civilians there. Rumple is definitely a collaborator. He'd sell out his neighbors in order to get better stuff for himself. Meanwhile, he'd also be making a fortune on the black market and would take bribes from the resistance to stay quiet about them. Regina is a tough one because her character is so inconsistent, and there's such a huge difference between what she does and what they tell us about her. I think she'd be a flip-flopper, and she'd change sides not because she believes in either cause, but because of her personal feelings. She might initially side with the occupiers because she feels like she was wronged by one of the resistance people. Then she might change sides when the occupiers do something to hurt her. She'd fall in love with a resistance fighter, but then when he died, she'd get disillusioned and be tempted back to collaborating with the occupiers. After the war, she'd act like she was with the resistance all along and claim that she was a different person when she was a collaborator.

6 hours ago, Camera One said:

I am enjoying it, though it feels strange with the characters in modern clothing. 

I was looking for some sort of commentary that got into what they were doing. The modern clothing at the beginning looked like it was some kind of fundamentalist sect, which went frighteningly well with the way they were talking about women. And I guess they all loosened up because of their adventures. I'm not sure where they were going with making Hippolyta and Theseus also be Titania and Oberon, especially since they seem to have remembered things from the Titania and Oberon experience, so were they possessed or were they really that way all along?

6 hours ago, Camera One said:

If the Writers had done a half-season of Shakespearean world, it might be fun, but they would need to be way more intellectual than they actually were. 

It might have been interesting to do something with fairies along the lines of A Midsummer Night's Dream, where people stumbled upon them in the woods. But that would have required them to do something interesting with the fairies, and they didn't seem to have used any of the folklore to show them as being capricious and enjoying playing with people. You'd think the Enchanted Forest would be, you know, enchanted, so that magical things happened when you ventured in there. You should run into fairies and Puck and get tricked and made to fall in love with the wrong person. And maybe even turned into an ass.

[Camera One]

5 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

I was looking for some sort of commentary that got into what they were doing. The modern clothing at the beginning looked like it was some kind of fundamentalist sect, which went frighteningly well with the way they were talking about women. And I guess they all loosened up because of their adventures. I'm not sure where they were going with making Hippolyta and Theseus also be Titania and Oberon, especially since they seem to have remembered things from the Titania and Oberon experience, so were they possessed or were they really that way all along?

I forgot the details of the original play, so I realized after viewing that they merged the roles of Hippolyta/Titania and Theseus/Oberon.  It confused me a little since I thought they were the same people.  I also forgot that in the original play, Oberon made Titania fall in love with an animal.  I liked this reversal.  

I did find it amusing that Puck was also "Robin", thinking what "Once" would have done with that. 

I could see Blue as the daughter of Oberon or Titania.  Maybe she saw how her parents' antics hurt people and tried to reform the fairies.

I don't watch opera, but I decided to try the Royal Opera's "The Magic Flute" since it expires tomorrow, I think.  The story is pretty archaic, but it would be easy to adapt it in "Once" since there's a Prince and a Princess, and an Evil Queen.  Heck, she could have been Cora asking someone to rescue Regina from being "kidnapped", and Regina discovering Cora's true nature.  The Magic Flute and Bells seem like the perfect MacGuffins for "Once".

Edited July 2, 2020 by Camera One

[CCTC]

11 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

You'd think the Enchanted Forest would be, you know, enchanted, so that magical things happened when you ventured in there.

I recently watched The Tower episode on my rewatch.  Generally, not considered one of the greats, but there were some mysterious shots of the woods at night, that this is exactly what I thought.  They really did not utilize what they could have done with the Enchanted Forest.  

I saw a production of Midsummer Night's Dream about five years ago, and it might be the hardest I have laughed in the theater.  I imagine when that show is done badly - it is very bad, but when it is done right - wow.

[Shanna Marie]

10 hours ago, Camera One said:

I forgot the details of the original play, so I realized after viewing that they merged the roles of Hippolyta/Titania and Theseus/Oberon.  It confused me a little since I thought they were the same people.

I'd skimmed a summary of the play before watching, and I'd looked up the cast list, so I knew they were merging roles. I just wish I had a better sense of why they did it that way. It seemed like at the end Theseus still had some lingering impressions from what happened as Oberon, so it seems like they were meant to have been the same people, not just different people played by the same actors. Or were they saying it really all was a dream? It kind of seemed at times like Hippolyta was always Titania under cover and she was the one doing all this to knock the raging sexism out of the men, but did she make Theseus think he was Oberon, or was he always Oberon? I feel like they were maybe creating a new story out of the same text, but since they didn't change the text (aside from some ad libbing), it's hard to tell exactly what that story is, and I'd love to know because it's potentially fascinating.

10 hours ago, Camera One said:

I also forgot that in the original play, Oberon made Titania fall in love with an animal.  I liked this reversal.  

I guess there are consent issues either way, but given the rampant sexist attitudes at the beginning of the play, it's a lot less creepy for the woman to be manipulating the man than for the man to be manipulating and humiliating the woman. This way, it seems like she's getting some kind of payback.

11 hours ago, Camera One said:

I did find it amusing that Puck was also "Robin", thinking what "Once" would have done with that. 

There is some speculating that the "Robin Goodfellow" figure that Puck is said to be here is linked with the "Robin Hood" mythology, that Robin Hood is another version of Robin Goodfellow, a kind of woodland trickster character. They really missed the trickster part of the Robin Hood character with the "Once" version.

[Shanna Marie]

In my "living in an occupied country/fascist-like state" scenario, I realized I forgot Emma. I think she'd have been the agent parachuted into occupied territory with some kind of mission. She's supposed to meet up with the resistance, but she's wary of them because she's not sure they can be trusted entirely or that they'd be useful, but when carrying out her mission on her own, she runs into Hook, who's setting out to do the same mission.

On another note, when ABC aired Moana a couple of months ago, I recorded it and finally got around to watching it. I couldn't help but think of how they'd have portrayed those characters. I guess the hook WHook went after in season 7 was their reference to this, but then it's weird for him to be getting it from Ahab. Wouldn't it have been more interesting to get it from Maui, an actual demigod? Or did Disney not let them use these characters?

[Camera One]

33 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

On another note, when ABC aired Moana a couple of months ago, I recorded it and finally got around to watching it. I couldn't help but think of how they'd have portrayed those characters. I guess the hook WHook went after in season 7 was their reference to this, but then it's weird for him to be getting it from Ahab. Wouldn't it have been more interesting to get it from Maui, an actual demigod? Or did Disney not let them use these characters?

Yes, the way they used the Maui hook was plain weird.  I found the original movie rather forgettable.  

How would she had been adapted in "Once"?  Hmm, let see:

Moana appears as a fierce warrior, with WALLS™ trying to find a way to save her kingdom, which disappeared under the sea.  She walks around accusing people of stealing the stone "heart" of her island.   She steals the Maui hook from Hook by knocking him out with a boat oar.  In flashbacks, we see that her kingdom included a medieval castle and was set in a coniferous forest. Meanwhile, a long time ago, Te Fiti became evil because she was trying to save her baby but dabbled into dark magic, gave away her heart and became a lava demon.  Te Fiti was also Mother Gothel's stepsister.  Hook killed Moana's father, Regina tricked Moana's mother, Belle almost ate Moana's pet pig, and Rumple made a deal with Moana's grandparents.   The End and we shall never mention this arc ever again.

Edited July 4, 2020 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

23 hours ago, Camera One said:

I found the original movie rather forgettable.  

It was basically Brave in the Pacific with music and a few minor changes. We've got the chief/king's daughter who wants more freedom and adventure than her traditional role allows who takes advice from a magical old woman and ends up on an adventure to set things right (and change her people's attitudes and perceptions). The difference is that the problem wasn't Moana's fault, and she went on her adventure with Maui (whose fault it was) rather than with her mother.

I'm afraid they're getting rather by-the-numbers in their princess stories. It was a cute movie. The animation was utterly amazing and I liked the music, but I don't see myself watching it again.

I've found myself analyzing the evolution of the "I Want" song in Disney movies over the ages. There's always the song at the beginning of the movie in which the main character sings about what she wants. Snow White sang about wanting a prince to find her. Cinderella's was awfully vague. She sang about a dream being a wish, but I don't think she ever narrowed it down to specifying what she wanted. She just wanted. Sleeping Beauty sang about wanting someone to find her and love her. With Alice, we got our first broadened horizons song, in which she sang about wanting a world of her own that was different from her world. I don't know the chronological order of the classic Disney films other than that Snow White was first. When we jump to the Disney revival, we have Ariel wanting to be part of the human world, then Belle wanting adventure in the great wide somewhere. I don't actually remember Tiana's song -- wasn't it about working to open her dream restaurant? Rapunzel sang about wanting her life to begin. Elsa was supposedly the star of Frozen, but it was really Anna who had the "I Want" song, talking about wanting to get outside the palace. And then we had Moana wanting to go out to sea.

Cinderella seems like the closest to the Once Snow White's vague hope speeches -- a dream that you wish will come true. No need for more specifics. It's interesting that the initial wanting to go to a different place song was all the way back with Alice, among all the "where's my prince?" songs from that era, but it would have been hard to have a "where's my prince?" song with that story. I don't remember the songs from Peter Pan or the other cartoons from that era and whether the male characters got "I Want" songs. In the revival era, Simba had the "I Just Can't Wait to be King" song. I don't think a princess has ever been allowed to sing about wanting to be queen.

23 hours ago, Camera One said:

Moana appears as a fierce warrior, with WALLS™ trying to find a way to save her kingdom, which disappeared under the sea.  She walks around accusing people of stealing the stone "heart" of her island.   She steals the Maui hook from Hook by knocking him out with a boat oar.  In flashbacks, we see that her kingdom included a medieval castle and was set in a coniferous forest. Meanwhile, a long time ago, Te Fiti became evil because she was trying to save her baby but dabbled into dark magic, gave away her heart and became a lava demon.  Te Fiti was also Mother Gothel's stepsister.  Hook killed Moana's father, Regina tricked Moana's mother, Belle almost ate Moana's pet pig, and Rumple made a deal with Moana's grandparents.   The End and we shall never mention this arc ever again.

Yup, that's pretty much how it would go.

[Camera One]

43 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

I've found myself analyzing the evolution of the "I Want" song in Disney movies over the ages. There's always the song at the beginning of the movie in which the main character sings about what she wants. Snow White sang about wanting a prince to find her. Cinderella's was awfully vague. She sang about a dream being a wish, but I don't think she ever narrowed it down to specifying what she wanted. She just wanted. Sleeping Beauty sang about wanting someone to find her and love her. With Alice, we got our first broadened horizons song, in which she sang about wanting a world of her own that was different from her world. I don't know the chronological order of the classic Disney films other than that Snow White was first. When we jump to the Disney revival, we have Ariel wanting to be part of the human world, then Belle wanting adventure in the great wide somewhere. I don't actually remember Tiana's song -- wasn't it about working to open her dream restaurant? Rapunzel sang about wanting her life to begin. Elsa was supposedly the star of Frozen, but it was really Anna who had the "I Want" song, talking about wanting to get outside the palace. And then we had Moana wanting to go out to sea.

Cinderella seems like the closest to the Once Snow White's vague hope speeches -- a dream that you wish will come true. No need for more specifics. It's interesting that the initial wanting to go to a different place song was all the way back with Alice, among all the "where's my prince?" songs from that era, but it would have been hard to have a "where's my prince?" song with that story. I don't remember the songs from Peter Pan or the other cartoons from that era and whether the male characters got "I Want" songs. In the revival era, Simba had the "I Just Can't Wait to be King" song. I don't think a princess has ever been allowed to sing about wanting to be queen.

I think Cinderella had the vague hope that her life would get better.  It's kind of nice that she didn't mention a prince, though she was truly just hoping.   I don't think Pinocchio and Peter Pan had "I want" songs.  Peter Pan didn't really change at all.  There were a bunch of animal movies like "Dumbo" and "Bambi" without those songs either.  

In the 90s revival, Aladdin's "I Want" song was just a short reprise of "One Jump Ahead" after the suitor to the princess said he'll always be a street rat.  Quasimodo in "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" had the common song of wanting to go "Out There".  Hercules had "Go the Distance", though I thought the original song "Shooting Star" was more introspective and about finding a place where he would be accepted.  Mulan and Pocahontas both had a song that was questioning their role of just marrying a pre-arranged suitor.  

So the themes of "I want" seem to be:
- wanting to find someone to love (in the oldest movies)
- wanting freedom to escape from their current contraints and obligations and other people's plans for them (in more recent movies)

I totally forgot about Alice's song, since she doesn't really sing again and that movie didn't attempt to give her character any kind of epiphany.  Tiana's song was about babysitting Lucy and turning a drug van into a food truck, LOL.  Her song "Almost There" was about her dream restaurant, though she was actually actively working/closer to her goal, and more modern than most of the other songs due to the setting.

Edited July 5, 2020 by Camera One

[Shanna Marie]

On 7/5/2020 at 1:26 PM, Camera One said:

 I don't think Pinocchio and Peter Pan had "I want" songs.  Peter Pan didn't really change at all. 

I guess the Pinocchio "I want" song was "When You Wish Upon a Star," but it was really more about Gepetto than Pinocchio and wasn't sung by either of them. From what I've read, Walt Disney looked at Wendy as the protagonist of Peter Pan. He lumped her in with the storybook heroines he wanted to do movies about. I don't know what her arc would have been. She was being moved out of the nursery, a step toward growing up, but then she had to be "mother" to the Lost Boys, so did she decide she didn't want to grow up so fast?

On 7/5/2020 at 1:26 PM, Camera One said:

I totally forgot about Alice's song, since she doesn't really sing again and that movie didn't attempt to give her character any kind of epiphany. 

I'm not even entirely sure how that song was incorporated into the movie. Since I grew up long before home video, the way I experienced most of the Disney movies was through the "story and song" albums. They weren't actual soundtracks. It was more like they wrote audio dramas based on the movies, with the songs incorporated. Sometimes they used the movie cast, like with The Jungle Book (because people would have felt ripped off to buy a Jungle Book album and not get Louis Prima and Phil Harris) or Robin Hood (that had Roger Miller narrating). The Alice album was really different from the movie. It was a mostly different cast, and they had full versions of songs that were barely in the movie, as well as songs that weren't actually in the movie (like "The Jabberwocky" set to a jazz melody -- I think only a line or two made it into the movie). So I'm not sure how much of "A World of My Own" made it into the movie. There was also the song "Very Good Advice" that Alice sings, but it's only a fragment in the movie, and she sobs her way through it instead of actually singing it, but it's a full ballad on the album. It was my favorite song on the album, and I remember being very disappointed when I saw the movie and it was hardly there. I've only seen the movie a couple of times in my life, but at one point I had the album memorized. I think "Very Good Advice" was supposed to be her epiphany. She's realized how badly she's screwed up and gotten herself into a real jam, and she sings, "I give myself very good advice, but I very seldom follow it. That explains the trouble that I'm always in. Patience is very good advice, but the waiting makes me curious. And I'd love the change should something strange begin."

[Camera One]

Now I'm interested in seeing the animated "Alice in Wonderland"... I don't remember if I've ever seen it all the way through.  I knew of some of the songs from a compilation VHS video called "Lullabies" without ever watching the full "Dumbo", or "Peter Pan", etc.

Alice sings the song while playing with her cat.

Now I'm interested in hearing the full songs from "Alice in Wonderland".  I hope they put out a legacy album with deleted/truncated songs.  I didn't even remember the "Very Good Advice" song but I just watched a clip.  I'd like to hear the full song, without all the sobbing.  This scene is very reminiscent of Snow White being scared in the forest.

This Youtube "Disney"-esque song channel put out a song featuring the characters of "Once Upon A Time".  

 

Edited July 7, 2020 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

12 hours ago, Camera One said:

This Youtube "Disney"-esque song channel put out a song featuring the characters of "Once Upon A Time".  

I'm actually really impressed with the costumes and green screen. At least this time around, Regina's singing part is tolerable. 

It's more hopeful than most of everything after 2A.

Edited July 7, 2020 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

I had been wary about rebooting the series, but after that video, I'm thinking that maybe it would be possible to tell the same general story again in a different way with different actors.

In many ways, that song was similar to the "Once" musical episode, in that the characters were basically singing their backstories and basic motivations. 

That got me wondering how a full "Once" musical could be adapted.  At first, I was thinking maybe Act 1 would be Season 1 and Act 2 would be a mix of the subsequent seasons, but the subsequent season plots were so random that it wouldn't work (even Season 2 wouldn't work as a coherent and satisfying Act 2). 

But if a musical consisted only of Season 1, the final musical number would basically be the Happily Ever After, with everyone re-united and remembering again, making for a more complete story.

The other challenge would be to incorporate Hook into Season 1, and also "redeeming" Regina and Rumple in one musical instead of seven seasons of 22-23 episodes.

I was thinking that if the Season 1 story was a musical, it could start the same way with Emma coming to Storybrooke.  They could amalgamate Graham's role with Hook.  So Hook would also be Cursed, and he would be the Sheriff that Emma slowly grows to care for.  By having Hook also be the Huntsman who saves Snow White, we would more quickly be able to root for he and Emma to eventually be together.  Of course, Hook wouldn't die like Graham, but maybe Emma thinks he died at the end of Act 1.  That would also make Regina's redemption more believable since she doesn't murder anyone outright.  Maybe she simply imprisons Hook to make Emma think he died.  Or she blackmails him into pretending he dies, and he would also be struggling with his desire to seek revenge on Rumple.  In this simpler musical story, Hook would give up his revenge for Emma in this Season 1 story.

Regina could be redeemed without all the murderous backstories.  It would be more believable that maybe being a mother to Henry actually did change her.  At the end of the musical after the apple turnover incident, she could decide herself to reunite Snow and Charming, or maybe she tells Emma that a kiss would wake Henry up.  Her sacrifice would be realizing that Henry would be better off with Emma.  Regina wouldn't be friends per se with everyone at the end, but she would have a clear character arc and the audience could still be "happy" she learned her lesson.

Then, there's Rumple.  If Rumple were also to be "redeemed" in a "happy" ending, I think he would basically realize that Henry is all he has linked to Baelfire, and realize that he needed to change his ways.  It would be too busy to introduce an adult Neal, so I think in a musical, Rumple could talk to Emma and deduce that Henry's father is Baelfire and Emma tells him that "Neal" died, and that makes him re-think his dastardly plans to bring magic back.  Belle could help in his rehabilitation.

I guess there might also be a push to include Zelena, but I think there would already be too many characters to deal with. 

Edited July 7, 2020 by Camera One

[Camera One]

I was watching this ABC Weekend Special animated "adaptation" of "The Magic Flute".  

It reminded me a little of "Once" because it started off seeming to try to adapt the story, but ended up taking random clichéd elements from other fairy tale-esque stories and forcing them into this narrative.  Even the composer seemed to mostly give up on trying to use Mozart's music in the background after awhile, until the very end.  

[Shanna Marie]

I watched the live-action Aladdin last night, and it was rather aggressively meh, like they were working really hard to make a movie that wouldn't overshadow the cartoon version in any way. Will Smith was about the only cast member with any pizzazz, and even he was off his game (I think the guy who played the role on Broadway would have been much better). Aladdin kind of grew on me through the course of the movie and was funny when he was being all awkward, but the actor was still pretty bland. There was nothing too special about him, nothing that would make you think a princess would fall for him. Jasmine was basically a Disney Channel teen starbot who'd aged out of her sitcom into an adult role, but was still basically playing the role and singing like she was in some kind of Camp Rock/High School Musical show. She had a decent voice, but the singing style was totally wrong for this show. Jafar basically blended into the woodwork. I kept forgetting who that guy was supposed to be and mixing him up with the guards. It's embarrassing that both of the two TV Onceverse Jafars were far above the big-screen version in star power, name recognition, and charisma. I wonder why they didn't look to Bollywood to find Asian actors who could sing and dance and have some star power.

Really, I'm not sure why they needed to make this movie. They might have been better off taking the Cinderella approach, making a new film based on the original story with some nods to the Disney version rather than making a direct, live-action remake of the cartoon. The musical stuff was too big a clash with the setting. It works fine in a cartoon and even on stage because there's an element of surreality, but in live action, it was a jolt to have all these very American (or, in Aladdin's case, Canadian) people running around in a medieval Asian setting singing jazzy American music full of modern American pop culture references. A good epic fantasy of the Aladdin story might have been interesting, though.

I did find it amusing that this film made Aladdin out to be some kind of chosen one because he was the rare Diamond in the Rough who could get the lamp. That reminded me of the Once Aladdin being a Savior.

In other news, they're remaking Peter Pan yet again, with some hype about Jude Law playing Captain Hook. In the comments to every article about how "groundbreaking" they're being to have a sexy Captain Hook, there always seems to be at least one remark about or picture of the Once Hook already being the sexy Hook.