- This topic has 118 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Or Rumple just has a feeling that Belle is a very special person. I feel like if he suspected her of being half fairy, some sort of drama would have come of it by now. His hatred for fairies is fairly well known.
[adrotate group="5"]"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"At this moment, I do not buy the Belle is Tink’s daughter theory- I think it’s a bit out there, honestly, no offense. I’d never heard of a version of Beauty and the Beast in which Belle is a fairy’s daughter until now, and I’ve read or seen quite a few. Even so, I just can’t imagine Tink as anyone’s mother or having that sort of adult relationship with a man. She is very childlike and headstrong. I’d also prefer that Belle not have any magical background- not sure I like the idea of her being half fairy. However, as I always say, I’ve been wrong before!
At this moment, I do not buy the Belle is Tink’s daughter theory- I think it’s a bit out there, honestly, no offense. I’d never heard of a version of Beauty and the Beast in which Belle is a fairy’s daughter until now, and I’ve read or seen quite a few. Even so, I just can’t imagine Tink as anyone’s mother or having that sort of adult relationship with a man. She is very childlike and headstrong. I’d also prefer that Belle not have any magical background- not sure I like the idea of her being half fairy. However, as I always say, I’ve been wrong before!
I agree with you I really don’t like this theory either.
I think it’s a bit out there, honestly, no offense.
No offense taken, it is completely out there. 😆
Even if this doesn’t prove true, I do hope they have something else in mind to flesh out Belle’s backstory some more. One of the things I figure this theory has going for it is also why I favour ideas like RH and Marian being Tamara’s parents, and Hookriel, because it would allow multiple characters’ backstories to be fleshed out without them having to constantly bring in more and more new side characters, (which was something people complained about last season).
I’ve never thought of Tink as being anyone’s mother before. But then, as someone suggested earlier, perhaps she became the Tink we’re familiar with for a specific reason like lost love, (that’s how this show rolls). They’ll be wanting to give her an unexpected back story of some description.
I agree with Phee. The appeal of mashing is to avoid a sprawl of so many actors that the cast swells and no story is fleshed out enough as each “star” needs a certain screen time per their contract for the season.
When they decide not to actually combine a character, then the next best thing is some intertwined backstory so we get to see more development for characters we already know. Belle is a gaping blank slate in a lot of ways, especially as she has not had much interaction with the Charmings or Emma, and is not on the JR. So how do they avoid exploring Belle without it feeling disjointed from what is going on with our main cast? Nealfire has the same problem.
So introducing a character who connects the narratives could be an interesting way to go about it, but depends on how it is done. I do have reservations about the Tink is Belle’s Momma idea. Mainly because it is hard to picture Tink and Mo, but if they cast a young Mo as Phee mentioned young Henry Sr., well, it seems less odd. I like the idea she was in training to be the patron fairy godmother idea. I also think it could lead to some present day SB development for Belle forgiving her father, and that could parallel Nealfire being more emotionally prepared to do the same when reunited with Rumpel. (Only by then, Rumpel will likely have done something new to estrange them!).
I could also see the Belle and Tink are sisters idea, that there’s something Belle discovers that lets her dream or see what Tink does in some way.
If it is just TInk was the “dark fairy” who gave Snow the dust, that’s great for backstory with Snow and Charming maybe, but we still have Belle out in SB unlinked to the main narrative in NL. Plus, no reason both couldn’t be true–Tink could be the dark fairy, AND somehow be related to Belle.
We always come up with this stuff and then the real storyline seems so flat …. oh well. It’s what we do. Like the dwarves, work is work–theories are theories. Or something like that!
“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?” -- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass
Okay, if you really want to connect Belle and Tink, how about this? In the original Peter Pan mythology as well as the Disneyverse, fairies originate from a child’s first laugh. Here’s an excerpt from the play:
Peter Pan: When the first child laughed for the first time, that laugh broke into a million pieces, and they all went skipping about, and that was the beginning of fairies. There ought to be a fairy for every girl and boy.
Wendy: Ought to be? Isn’t there?
Peter: No. Children know such a lot now. Soon, they don’t believe, and every time a child says, “I don’t believe in fairies,” a fairy somewhere drops down dead.
So what if Tinker Bell was a fairy formed from Belle’s first laugh as a child? That could work.
Oh wait, then you have the timeline problem if Tink has existed far longer than Belle. Hm!
I know that a possible connection between Belle and fairies seems like a stretch, yet such a connection does exist in the earliest written version of the tale. Regarding fairies and Belle, take a look at this brief synopsis of one of the original tales of Beauty and the Beast:
Villeneuve’s tale includes several elements that Beaumont’s omits. Chiefly, the back-story of both Belle and the Beast is given. The Beast was a prince who lost his father at a young age, and whose mother had to wage war to defend his kingdom. The queen left him in care of an evil fairy, who tried to seduce him when he became an adult; when he refused, she transformed him into a beast. Belle’s story reveals that she is not really a merchant’s daughter but the offspring of a king and a good fairy. The wicked fairy had tried to murder Belle so she could marry her father the king, and Belle was put in the place of the merchant’s dead daughter to protect her. She also gave the castle elaborate magic, which obscured the more vital pieces of it. Beaumont greatly pared down the cast of characters and simplified the tale to an almost archetypal simplicity.
We still don’t know all of the details of Rumplestiltskin’s childhood. We know from “Manhattan” that his father was a coward who abandoned him and that he was raised by three spinsters (could be fairies). It’s interesting that in the original tale, the Beast was left in the care of an evil fairy. Now, if Rumple were raised by fairies, then that could also help to explain his hatred of them (in addition to when Blue sent Bae to London).
We also know next to nothing about Belle’s childhood or her mother. So, it’s certainly interesting to read that she was the daughter of a king (Sir Maurice is lesser nobility but sill) and a good fairy. As I referenced before, Tinkerbell can be entirely good one moment and entirely bad the next since her small size means she can only feel one emotion at a time.
"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy
Remember back when Manhattan script teases came out and they released the “spinster” one, many of us thought it was a “fairy” reference, maybe the three fairies of Sleeping Beauty of the three fates, ect.
I also think it’s a stretch and that there is a good chance we’ll look back on their theory as one of the better cracktheories (Baelicchio, the Wizard of Neverland, anyone??) but I have to admit, all the connections Slurpeez and others are coming up with are actually pretty interesting.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"So what if Tinker Bell was a fairy formed from Belle’s first laugh as a child? That could work.
Oh wait, then you have the timeline problem if Tink has existed far longer than Belle. Hm!
kfchimera proposed something similar earlier in the thread. I could see that connection happening if they wanna stick with the laugh thing. (Though a while back, someone suggested that maybe NL fairies are created from a child’s first tear instead, given how horrible NL apparently is.)
We dunno yet just how long Tink has been around. I’ve always sort of assumed she’s been around for forever, but we just have no idea yet. Even if she only popped into existence when Belle was born, if she was in NL, for all we know, 30-ish FTL years could equate to 100 or more NL years, which would still mean she’d been around for a while.
Remember back when Manhattan script teases came out and they released the “spinster” one, many of us thought it was a “fairy” reference, maybe the three fairies of Sleeping Beauty of the three fates, ect.
They totally shoulda stolen our ideas on that one. That was some cool cracktheory.
I don’t really think of Tink as a “good fairy.” Those are usually the sort who grant wishes and protect people- like Blue or the Fairy Godmother. Tink’s not like that- she’s out for herself. I think Never fairies are a different sort than the fairies we’ve met in the Enchanted Forest. From Tink’s casting description, it sounds as if we are getting a traditional Tink- at least personality wise…fits what we usually know of her pretty well.
I would *love* more backstory on Belle! I’m really hoping we get to learn more about her life pre-Rumple. We really don’t know much about her so far because she’s only been shown in conjunction with Rumple so far, except in “The Outsider.” That’s why I loved that episode so much- we finally saw another side of Belle.
The topic ‘Tinker Bell Cast’ is closed to new replies.