OUAT vs. Other Fairy Tales: Compare & Contrast

[Serena]

So, we're so bored of discussing spoilers we've been going all sorts of OT on the Spoiler thread. The latest OTness was which Once character "parallels" BTVS characters? Suggestions have been Neal/Emma as Buffy/Angel versus Hook/Emma as Buffy/Spike, or alternatively Regina as Spike.

 

I agree I don't see Hook as Spike. The "general" trope is there, bad boy in love with blonde heroine, but not much else.

 

Jane Espenson was asked this in a podcast and said that, if anything, Rumple would be Spike.

 

I vote Regina as Xander because the show(s) seem to think their shit doesn't stink.

[Dianthus]

Rumple as Spike? Yowza! I don't see that at all.

I've already made my case. If you don't see it, you don't see it. That's fine, but it's what works for me. I love Spike, and I love Hook. I love Buffy (even if I've wanted to give her a good shake for some time now) and I love Emma.

Seems to me being the Savior hasn't been much easier for Emma than being the Slayer is for Buffy (less slime and nastiness, tho'). They've both suffered, they've both put up walls, they've both been betrayed by the people they loved. They both discovered a 'kindred spirit' in a former foe.

These aren't direct one-to-one comparisons, but there are parallels (IMO).

[Mari]

Seems to me being the Savior hasn't been much easier for Emma than being the Slayer is for Buffy (less slime and nastiness, tho'). They've both suffered, they've both put up walls, they've both been betrayed by the people they loved. They both discovered a 'kindred spirit' in a former foe.

These aren't direct one-to-one comparisons, but there are parallels (IMO).

They--and far too many people around them--blame them for and consider them responsible for things to a completely unreasonable degree.

 

They've both tried to do the right thing and been metaphorically kicked in the teeth for it.

 

They've both tried to be friends with people that didn't particularly like them or treat them well.

 

They both grew up differently than people in their position usually have.

 . . .

 

Rumple as Spike?  I don't think so.  Maybe Maggie Walsh?  Overly complicated ideas, while considering himself superior, that tend to backfire eventually.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Mari

[Mathius]

The one big difference is that every rape culture accusation people try to throw at Emma/Hook, Buffy/Spike actually IS. And I mean to the point where Spike literally attempted to rape Buffy. Their romance was a terrible idea, even Jason Marsters thought so.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Mathius

[tennisgurl]

Not to get off topic, but I finally saw Cinderella! It was delightful! I loved everything about it.

 

I loved that Lady Tremane was an interesting character, and you could have a smidgen of sympathy for her, but she was still clearly an awful person. It all still had a very fairy tale feel to it, but still grounded it in real feelings and a feeling that this was a real place, with real people, who had real issues.

 

And the true hero of the story...Mr. Goose!  

[Dianthus]

Mathius, on 07 Apr 2015 - 6:48 PM, said:

The one big difference is that every rape culture accusation people try to throw at Emma/Hook, Buffy/Spike actually IS. And I mean to the point where Spike literally attempted to rape Buffy. Their romance was a terrible idea, even Jason Marsters thought so.

I believe I did say that Buffy was betrayed by others...Spike is certainly among them. There's no glossing over that. However, Spike was conflicted by what he'd done (per his monologue in the crypt after the fact) and he undertook a Hero's Journey upon coming to the realization that he had to choose between man or monster.

JM is free to his opinion, as I am free to mine. I've been persuaded that Spike was the physical embodiment of Buffy's Inner Darkness. Her ambivalence towards him and their power struggle (including the AR) was a visual representation of her inner struggle to find a balance between Slayer Buffy and 'normal' Buffy.

 

Bless you, Mari. Buffy and Emma are both far too willing to shoulder the blame for any and all perceived 'failures' on their part.

[KingOfHearts]

Could Madame Faustina be based on Madame Mim from Sword in the Stone? She has a similar voice and crazy hair.

[Shanna Marie]

It's not a perfect parallel, since they're totally different shows with different casts, and there would actually be a huge problem if the characters were exactly alike, but I can actually see the Spike/Rumple comparison.

 

In their pre-evil powers state, both weren't really bad men, but they were weak and kind of spineless. As I recall, Spike actually somewhat welcomed becoming a vampire because he wanted the power, which is similar to Rumple becoming the Dark One. They both let that power go to their heads, and they became sadistic and cruel, just for the fun of it. That's where I have a hard time seeing any comparison between Spike and Hook because even at his worst, Hook never seemed to be that gleefully bloodthirsty at random. Rumple really enjoyed exerting his newfound power, to the point that it drove his son away. And both Rumple and Spike did end up sacrificing themselves and disappearing, only to be brought back. Spike did become something of a good guy once he got his soul back, and it seems as though Rumple might stand a chance of being somewhat redeemed if he lost his Dark One powers.

 

Hook has some similarity to Angel in a fondness for black leather and for being brought out of darkness due at least partially to the influence of a snarky blond "chosen one" type, but where the comparison falls apart is in the past. Angel wasn't a good man even before he became a vampire. The irony of his story is that he was a far better man as a vampire with a soul than he'd been as a human being. He didn't go dark because bad things happened to him and he fell into despair, which I think is the key element in Hook's character.

 

A better Buffyverse parallel for Hook might be Wesley's arc on Angel (moving past his "twit" phase on Buffy). He was a good man who was competent at his job (even ultra-competent in some areas). He might have been a little too uptight and too much a stickler for rules at times, and he could be a bit of a dork. Then he lost everything and spiraled into darkness. During that time, he became a real badass. He did some really nasty stuff in the name of revenge, and he could be utterly ruthless, but he still had that core of good person in him (similar to what we saw in the Ursula flashback with Hook -- he really did plan to help her but got tripped up by his need for revenge). And ultimately he came back to the good-guy fold and was able to be a part of the group, though he was forever changed by what he'd gone through.

 

One other parallel I see is Regina as Willow (in her witch phase). I always hated that they went literal with the magic addiction storyline when what they seemed to me to be showing was that Willow's problem-solving abilities got stunted when she learned magic because she started relying on magic to solve all her problems. Instead of working out her relationship issues, she'd just do a spell. I think a lot of Regina's issues stem from the fact that she seemed to have become emotionally stunted at the point she lost Daniel and started learning magic. That may be why she acts so much like a teenager now. She wants things her way, and she's frustrated when she can't just wave her hand and make it happen, and now that she's trying to be good she has to learn other ways of getting things instead of forcing the issue with magic. Willow, like Regina, was kind of the writers' pet Mary Sue of the show, so she got talents and abilities out of thin air when they were needed for the plot, and she seldom got consequences to match her actions. She did feel some remorse, unlike Regina, but she did nearly destroy the whole world because she was upset about losing her lover, and she got a welcome-home party afterward. Who does that sound like?

[FurryFury]

No, I don't see Wesley/Hook and Regina/Willow parallels, at all. They are forced and don't ring true to the characters. Regina was never really addicted to magic - hell, the person with the biggest addiction on the show is probably Rumple, to power (they did try to mention magic addiction once or twice, but it was thankfully dropped). And personality-wise, they are the opposite. 

Wesley is probably my favorite TV character ever, but his story is far more complex and nuanced than Adam and Eddie could ever envision. Hook is just the latest in the line of bad boys with tragic backstories turned on the path to redemption by the love of the heroine. There's no ambition in his storyline. It's done well enough, by Once's standards, but it's nowhere near Wesley's arc - a story that Joss once mentioned to be something he's really proud of (and deservingly so). I can see why people see similarities to Spike, actually - only Hook never was as evil as Spike in the first place, and he certainly didn't fall as low as Spike in the later seasons of Buffy (although Angel redeemed him for me to a certain extent). Anyway, there aren't even superficial similarities between him and Wesley. Wesley's story was never about redemption, and he was a very tragic character. Hook is guaranteed to have a happy ending. If I had to compare anyone on Once to Wesley, it would be Rumple - specifically, there is a certain similarity between Fred/Wes and Rumbelle (and come to think of it, Wes/Lilah and Rumple/Cora) - while Wesley never treated Fred as badly, both placed these women on pedestal and considered them their saviors (and were foolish to do so). Also, both are pretty much tragic characters and started out as ineffectual and laughable. Both had daddy issues, too. Plus, I'm now starting to suspect Rumple will also die before the end of the show.

Edited April 8, 2015 by FurryFury

[Dianthus]

So because of this one thing, my entire argument is rendered invalid? I never said Hook was as evil as Spike. A pirate's not a vampire (cool Halloween costumes aside) or vise-versa. However, that doesn't change the fact there's a passing similarity in build (lean and athletic), looks (high cheekbones and sparkly blue eyes), word choice ("Bloody Hell!" and "Swan/Summers"), dress (long black leather coat) and attitude (flirty and sexy). Spike even went thru a guyliner phase (Fool for Love flashback to 1977).

I believe it was Regina who said something about Hook being "impulsive and prone to violence." That could just as easily describe Spike. Then on top of that you add in the parallels between Buffy and Emma and the relationships each develops with her respective bad boy.

William was a good man (if ineffectual). Killian was a good man. Both characters went to a dark place (for different reasons, I'll grant you) and found their way back to their better selves.

I can see parallels between Neal and Angel on the romantic front, as well as parallels between Angel/us and Regina/Evil Queen. I can't really see Spike/Regina parallels. Spike has more self-awareness (just like Hook).

Other takes on the subject are interesting to me in an academic sense, but I have yet to be persuaded away from my original position.

As for the Spike/Rumple thing, I still don't really see it (sorry Shanna Marie), especially in terms of Spike's relationship to Buffy versus Rumple's relationship to Belle. The power dynamic between Spike and Buffy was more balanced. Spike didn't want power so much as someone who saw him as special. Dru (a seer herself) saw him that way and said as much ("You walk in worlds others can't imagine."). He wasn't really evil for evil's sake, either (unlike Angel). He liked the rush and the crunch. He thought it was a party (AtS ep Damaged). He was, in other words, kind of a frat boy. Sound familiar?

[Souris]

So now Disney is planning a live-action Pinocchio. I ... think it will be creepy.

 

As for the Buffy comparisons, I agree with Shanna Marie that Hook is more akin to Wesley (my favorite characters on their respective shows) than Spike. Though not a perfect comparison, of course, and I don't in general like comparing characters from show to show unless it's an obvious derivative. I've never seen the Hook/Spike comparison myself, though clearly some do.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Souris

[HoodlumSheep]

I think I remember a very creepy live action one from long ago that wasn't Disney. I think. I think it may have involved a furnace?

This'll be one I probably won't see. Monstro still gives me nightmares.

[Dianthus]

Souris, on 08 Apr 2015 - 4:28 PM, said:

So now Disney is planning a live-action Pinocchio. I ... think it will be creepy.

 

As for the Buffy comparisons, I agree with Shanna Marie that Hook is more akin to Wesley (my favorite characters on their respective shows) than Spike. Though not a perfect comparison, of course, and I don't in general like comparing characters from show to show unless it's an obvious derivative. I've never seen the Hook/Spike comparison myself, though clearly some do.

When you think about it, tho', there's an echo of the one's character arc in the other too. He goes from straight-laced and uptight to discovering the darkness within to becoming a much fuller and well-rounded person.  

I didn't care for the character on BtVS (the rod up his butt had a rod up it's butt), and I wasn't too happy to see him again on AtS at first. He only really started to grow on me then - I loved seeing him with Lilah (who kicked all kinds of ass), and I was sad to see him go.

[Trini]

This is the live-action Pinocchio I saw as a kid; but I know it's not the only one.

[KingOfHearts]

Why doesn't Disney just announce their remaking every animated film they've ever done in live action? We've got Jungle Book, Dumbo, Beauty and the Beast, Mulan and now Pinocchio all on the way. Can't wait to see the Rescuers Down Under gets its big Hollywood reboot...

Edited April 9, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[Dianthus]

Dunno if it was Disney (wouldn't it have to be?), but I remember a live -action version of The Jungle Book with Jason Scott Lee (in a loincloth, rawr!) as a grown up Mowgli. John Cleese was also in it. I really liked it.

[Trini]

That was Disney, but I guess they feel the need to re-make it again.

And 'agreed' about Jason Scott Lee!

Edited April 9, 2015 by Trini

[Shanna Marie]

Monstro still gives me nightmares.

Oh yeah. I had to hide under the bed when that part came on the record. Back in the Dark Ages, before home video, there were records that had a narrator telling the story of the movie with music from the movie woven in, and the record cover contained a book with pictures taken from the movie, so you could listen and get a facsimile experience of seeing the movie. Even without the full-scale imagery, the Monstro parts were so scary that I had to hide under the bed until those parts were over. When I actually saw the movie during a re-release when I was four or five, I remember feeling rather smugly superior because I knew to brace myself for that part, but my best friend (a boy) had to be taken out of the theater because he was so freaked out.

 

Though I really had no room to talk because I had to leave the theater when the girl turned into a blueberry in Willie Wonka.

 

I wouldn't mind it if the same production team that did Cinderella did a similar take on Sleeping Beauty, with really good actors, lush scenery, gorgeous costumes and more fleshed-out relationships.

[Camera One]

I wouldn't mind it if the same production team that did Cinderella did a similar take on Sleeping Beauty, with really good actors, lush scenery, gorgeous costumes and more fleshed-out relationships.

 

Maybe they consider that one already "done" with Maleficent with Angelina Jolie.

[HoodlumSheep]

Don't forget that they're doing a live Action Winnie the Pooh. I like to think they're doing it for the sole purpose of Winnie being the big bad in season 6 of Once.

And speaking of Rescuers Down Under...Am I the only one who's upset that they'd choose to re-release B&B, a movie that has no business being 3-D, before Down Under--which would actually look decent in 3-D due to all the vast scenery shots and stuff?

I know it was a couple years back, but it makes me mad.

There's a 1942 Jungle Book. My dad likes that one I think.

[FurryFury]

they're doing a live Action Winnie the Pooh.

 

What. Seriously, all the characters except for Christopher Robin are animals! Will they be CGI'd?

[Serena]

I think I remember a very creepy live action one from long ago that wasn't Disney. I think. I think it may have involved a furnace?

A non-Disney Pinocchio was made in 2002 by Roberto Benigni. He played Pinocchio and his wife was the Blue Fairy.

[The Cake is a Pie]

What. Seriously, all the characters except for Christopher Robin are animals! Will they be CGI'd?

Lord, now I'm picturing Ted, except with a CGI Pooh Bear and grown up Christopher Robin.

Not gonna lie, I would watch the shit out of that.

[Camera One]

I don't watch "Orphan Black", so I don't know how valid these points that the TV critic is making are, but I find it interesting since these complaints about that show, as it moves into the second season, are similar to problems that "Once" had or has...

http://www.sfchronicle.com/entertainment/article/TV-Orphan-Black-loses-its-mojo-6194885.php

 

These problems seem to include:

- tried to keep the show "fresh" beyond first season premise but this attempt failed and was the "easy way out"

- on paper, ideas are not a bad idea, but it doesn't work (though in this show's case, part of it is the acting of new characters)

- contrived complications to major characters just to "muddy the waters"

- supporting characters becoming "glorified babysitters", given little to do, characters becoming "vestigial"

 

And the TV critic's summary:

 

 

The script is a mess, the rest of the show makes little sense, and the breakneck thriller aspect of the show has all but eclipsed the thematic base of the series.

 

What was once a unique, feisty, ambitious series has become just another middling show whose creators seem to be way in over their heads.

 

So it's not unusual for sci-fi/fantasy shows to go this route after an initial excellent first season which launched off from a promising premise.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Camera One

[tennisgurl]

Yeah, I can see some of that. To me, Orphan Black season 2 was no where NEAR as bad as Once season 2, but it does have some of the same issues. 

[FurryFury]

Unfortunately, I can't get the article to load (I guess subscription is required), but yeah, I was disappointed with s2 of Orphan Black (although I've never been that big of a fan in the first place). My big grievance is reviving Helena (the big bad of season 1) and giving her a very unearned (and shoddily written) "redemption" arc and how easily everyone forgave her. Some of the characters were sidelined without a good reason and the heroine suddenly got a new love interest who is also her babydaddy (sounds familiar?) He's nowhere as bad as Neal was, and played by a better actor, but holy shit, is he dull and personality-free.

[tennisgurl]

Yeah, the Helena redemption story could have used A LOT of work (the other clones should have been way more hesitant to work with her) but it didn't bother me so much as say, Regina and her "redemption" arc has been. Helena was so out of touch with reality when we first met her, it seemed like she was more of a weapon being used by bad guys, than an actual person doing evil. She did do evil things, but I am at least a little more sympathetic to her, being as she seems to be legitimately mentally unwell. 

 

But yeah, I hope they focus more on our core cast this season. 

[Shanna Marie]

I guess this is the right thread for this. I ran across this site by an Italian artist who did a series of "If Disney characters were on Instagram," and it's rather brilliant.

 

Here's the one with the Evil Queen and Snow White, Alice and the Mad Hatter, and the Darling kids (being photobombed by Peter Pan).

 

There are others in the sidebar. Look for the "selfie fables" items. You have to scroll a bit down on each page to get to the actual Instagram stuff. At the top there's a header that's sort of a thumbnail, then description in Italian and English, and then the actual post.

[jhlipton]

I guess this is the right thread for this. I ran across this site by an Italian artist who did a series of "If Disney characters were on Instagram," and it's rather brilliant.

 

Here's the one with the Evil Queen and Snow White, Alice and the Mad Hatter, and the Darling kids (being photobombed by Peter Pan).

 

These are soooooooo cute!

 

Ariel is totally HAWT!

Edited April 15, 2015 by jhlipton

[Curio]

I just started watching Black Sails, and even though I've only seen the first episode, I now have a head canon where Captain Flint is secretly our Captain Hook's dad. I don't care if they're on two completely different shows/timelines/universes, it is my personal crack theory until Once decides to actually delve into Hook's childhood. Also, it would totally explain the ginger beard.

[scarynikki12]

Forgive the novel but I've been thinking about the rules of magic in this show and, as I always do, I inevitably end up comparing it to my beloved Harry Potter.  Naturally, I find it lacking, as Rowling did a great job of world building in general and with the rules of magic in particular while I strongly feel that this show has made some real mistakes in this regard.

 

Thinking about Dark Magic, in the Potter world those spells are shown to be very dangerous (Avada Kedavra), often unstable (Fiendfyre), and require serious intent (Harry failing to effectively use the Cruciatus Curse in book 5 and then succeeding with the Imperious Curse in book 7).  We're shown that Dark magic is so risky that often only the worst of the worst will use it.  The results are also irreversible depending on the spell.  Neville's parents never recover from being subjected to the Cruciatus Curse, wizards (save Harry) who find themselves on the receiving end of the Killing Curse always die, and anyone who creates Fiendfyre better know how to stop it otherwise it will blaze out of control with no end in sight.

 

Rowling's world building establishes all of this.  Once, on the other hand, established that the fairies can't use magic without their wands but that seems to be the only consistent rule (and only to explain why the fairies aren't constantly leveling the playing field against the villains).  There's no set rule on who can or can't use magic.  Regina and Cora were able to learn magic pretty easily yet there's no explanation as to why.  Conversely, there's no explanation as to why the Charmings, or anyone for that matter, can't learn magic either.  Emma and Zelena are both presented as being born with automatic magical abilities yet neither is presented as a crazy powerful magical practitioner on the show, which could be a logical distinction between the born and the learned (and would be a simple reason Rumpel needed to get multiple magical practitioners on his side to turn Emma dark).  Regina defeated Zelena with magic she'd never even used before and Emma gets stopped time and again when she goes up against the magical villains.  Snow was able to cast the Dark Curse even though it's been established that she's not a practitioner and likely never will be (and makes me wonder why Rumpel wasted his time teaching Regina magic since all he needed to do was convince her to sacrifice her father and take care of the magic himself like Regina did with Snow).

 

There is also only one effect from using dark magic on the show: a darkened heart.  At first, I assumed this would be the show equivalent of soul splitting from Potter.  In Potter, if a wizard commits murder, he/she splits the soul, which is then shown to have serious, potentially permanent, consequences.  On Once, the only consequence of having a dark heart is the color change.  There's no indication that behavior, abilities, relationships, etc. are affected when the heart darkens.  Sure Rumpel's seems to be turning on him but, when he inevitably heals at season's end (not a spoiler, just what I assume will happen based on the series to date), I doubt it will ever change color even if he devotes himself to being a good person for eternity.  At first it seemed like the show was going with personality changes when the heart was removed but then they went against it by showing that neither Cora, Regina, nor Hook changed personality when their were removed.  They've tried to claim that Cora would have been a loving mother to Regina, rather than a power hungry social climber, had she not removed her heart but the circumstances surrounding her abandonment of Zelena implies otherwise.  Graham claimed to not be able to feel anything but his behavior didn't seem different so it's hard to tell if he was being truthful or was rationalizing the constant abuse that Regina inflicted upon him.  Hook kissed Emma a bit more forcefully after his heart was taken but that was it and his feelings for her didn't show any change.  Regina removed her heart on two separate occasions and yet she showed no changes in behavior (she didn't attack Snow in the Enchanted Forest and we all saw her perform True Love's Kiss in Storybrooke).

 

Unfortunately, I think it's too late for the show to set any rules about magic, as they would just contradict what has already been shown.  It's just an avoidable annoyance.

[Shanna Marie]

The Harry Potter series is a great example of setting up a magical system with limits but still allowing a lot of leeway. There was a good distinction of who might have magical power -- you were born with it or not, mostly it ran in the family, but there were magical people who came from otherwise unmagical families and nonmagical people who came from magical families. There were rules on how it worked -- you had to use a specific spell to do something, and you had to learn and practice that spell to make it work. You also needed a wand, preferably your own. If Rowling wanted to temporarily weaken a character, he could be left just about powerless by losing his wand, or the wand might not work right if it was someone else's or broken. There was no waving your hands around and believing in yourself. There was magical healing, but it required certain spells or potions, and it still required a recovery period. No waving a hand and healing even a bad injury instantly.

 

Or there's the magic in Terry Pratchett's Discworld universe, where the witches and wizards only use magic as a last resort. The whole point of becoming trained as a witch or wizard is to know not to use magic because magic is very dangerous. Bad things tend to happen when someone starts using magic in the wrong way or uses too much magic. Using magic changes a person. The witches watch each other for signs of cackling that suggest a witch might have gone over the edge from magic use.

[FurryFury]

When it comes to complex magic systems with rules, no fantasy author is close to Brandon Sanderson. He's not a household name like Rowling or late & great Pratchett, but seriously, his magic rocks. I'm a big fan of his later books and generally love complex worldbuilding (one of the reasons for my love for "secondary world" fantasy genre).

[Writing Wrongs]

NBC uncancels Emerald City:

http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/04/16/nbc-revives-emerald-city

[FurryFury]

This week, I've got my Emma/Charmings fix by watching Skye meet her mother on Agents of SHIELD. Yeah, the overall situation's different (for instance, Emma's father is not a homicidal mad scientist and Emma's a much cooler character than Skye), but it really gave me the feels that I've been missing on Once. I mean, a magic-wielding girl in her 20s with a painful past of moving between orphanages and foster homes meets a woman who looks almost the same age who's revealed to be her mother. You could even compare Storybook to that Inhumans retreat in the mountains - isolated and full of "special" people.

Edited April 19, 2015 by FurryFury

[KingOfHearts]

 

NBC uncancels Emerald City

Super excited for this. Even though I know it's a darker twist, I hope it delves deeper into the Oz books than other adaptations have.

[Camera One]

I too had been looking forward to it, and was disappointed when it got cancelled.  The initial character descriptions seem to twist things a bit too far from the books, but at least they seemed to be using more than just the first book which is a good sign.  It looks like someone new is reworking it, so that could change.

[FurryFury]

I'll definitely check it out. Hope it's nothing like Zooey Deschanel Oz mini-series, hated that one.

[Mari]

I'll definitely check it out. Hope it's nothing like Zooey Deschanel Oz mini-series, hated that one.

Yes. The concept was interesting, but then, well, Zooey Deschanel.  (She seems nice enough in interviews, but her acting always seems to be cartooney or limited to one-three expressions.  No happy middle at all.)

Edited April 19, 2015 by Mari

[FurryFury]

I don't really like or dislike her (I decided not to watch her sitcom not because of her but because I hated the love interest), this mini-series just sucked overall. Boring and pointless.

However, I have a lot of love for L. Frank Baum's Oz book and the world, and no adaptation I've seen paid any attention to it. It's a long story, but I've basically first read our country's take on it (which is halfway between translation and fanfic, 6 books overall) and only then the real deal (still translated, because I was like 10). I only loved the real books and the sequels and I'm so, so bitter the show squandered Oz. I would love for somebody finally to use such characters as Ozma, Nome King, the patchwork doll (dunno her real name in English), etc. They seemed so cool.

Edited April 19, 2015 by FurryFury

[KingOfHearts]

Tin Man was too weird for me. I couldn't find myself caring about the characters or whether Oz could be rescued. I understand wanting a darker, more adult tone, but the fantasy element was bland at best. It wasn't magical or complex. I did enjoy Azkadellia's twist, but aside from that the only resonating factor it laid on me was its overall sense of strangeness. It was so far off the source material that it made me kind of mad. It wouldn't have bothered me as much if the original stuff was remotely interesting.

 

 

I would love for somebody finally to use such characters as Ozma, Nome King, the patchwork doll (dunno her real name in English), etc. They seemed so cool.

General Jinjur, please! Heck, even Mombi. Oz has such a deep lore that no has ever seemed to tap into.

Edited April 19, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

I never got to watch "Tin Man".  I'll look out for it.  I only just recently watched "Return to Oz".  That movie would be more visually impressive now with the current CGI technology, and it had a pretty good storyline.  The James Franco movie started out promising but really fizzled out into ridiculousness.  

Edited April 19, 2015 by Camera One

[FurryFury]

General Jinjur, please!

 

I have only my childhood memories... But even then, it really felt like a parody of feminism, and not a very affectionate one. I've read since then than Baum was a friend of some famous suffragette or something, so I guess it was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, but it didn't feel like it then. It felt weird. I'm still not sure what was the point.

 

I never got to watch "Tin Man".  I'll look out for it.

 

Eh, don't bother. It was something in the vein of SyFy "Alice", only much worse. Alice wasn't great, but at least quite watchable.

[Curio]

I would love for somebody finally to use such characters as Ozma, Nome King

 

Check out Return to Oz. It's a little trippy/80s, but it's actually one of my favorite Oz adaptations. Those Wheelers, man...

 

I only just recently watched "Return to Oz".  That movie would be more visually impressive now with the current CGI technology, and it had a pretty good storyline.

 

I actually much prefer the old school visual look of Return to Oz versus all the CGI and video game-looking movies of today. Sometimes, just some good old fashioned makeup and a large puppet can look better than a million dollar CGI job. Which is part of the reason why I really dislike the decision Once has made to make everything so freaking CGI looking. Like, I get that it might save them money in the long run, but you lose a lot of authenticity and I can't fully invest that this is a magical world because of it.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Curio

[Writing Wrongs]

The new Beauty And The Beast movie is racking up a good cast:

 

Disney’s upcoming live-action musical adaptation of Beauty and the Beast has found its Lumiere in Ewan McGregor, who is nearing a deal to play the enchanted castle’s resident maître d’ in the March 2017 film, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Lumiere, of course, is the suave Frenchman-turned-candelabra who sings the showstopping “Be Our Guest” (among other notable songs). The womanizing candlestick holder is often side by side with his vastly more uptight cohort, Cogsworth, played in the film by Ian McKellen.

The showy role was the last major question mark in the buzzy 3D project, which will star Emma Watson as Belle, Dan Stevens as the Beast, Luke Evans as Gaston, Josh Gad as Le Fou, Emma Thompson as Mrs. Potts, Kevin Kline as Maurice, Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Plumette, and Audra McDonald as Garderobe. Bill Condon will direct with a script by Stephen Chbosky and new songs (in addition to Alan Menken and Howard Ashman’s originals from the 1991 animated film) by Menken and Tim Rice.

 

And now Stanley Tucci will be playing Cadenza the grand piano, a new character to the realm who is described as a neurotic maestro.

[HoodlumSheep]

Does that mean we get to hear Ewan's beautiful singing voice again? Hooray!

And Stanley Tucci always does a good job.

[Mari]

I'm just hoping they finally give the Beast a name. It's always annoyed me that he doesn't even get a name.

[FurryFury]

Isn't his name Adam?

[Curio]

Horowitz?

 

(Sorry, I'll show myself out...)

[HoodlumSheep]

I'm just hoping they finally give the Beast a name. It's always annoyed me that he doesn't even get a name.

Isn't his unofficial name Prince Adam? or at least it seems to be the common consensus I think. I wish Disney would give the Prince's official names (for those who don't have one).

I also wish they'd officially declare the sequels as either canon or non-canon. At this point I pick and choose which sequel/prequels I prefer to being acceptable/canon, but I really think it should be all or nothing.

And if I had to choose, I'd choose non-canon. Mainly for the fact that none of them were produced/created/handled by the big parent studio. They were handled by lesser studios.

Edited April 22, 2015 by HoodlumSheep