[kfchimera]

Hm…. perfect GIFS are perfect.

I agree with Slurpeez  that this news would once have excited me but now it doesn’t.   I have incredibly low expectations that there’s any intent to tie off loose threads and delve into the characters and  backstory already shown, rather than create more plot /character inconsistencies for the sake of cashing in on the movie.  To be fair,  it might be something they always wanted to do and now with True Blood ending, the actress is more available, so they finally can.  Then again, if that’s so–why did they say she was dead-dead, and were so discouraging that she’d be back (there was a guy on twitter who asked frequently about Mal).  We did see a body, the first season, then her zombie form–with no particular hints they had more to say about her.    What many of us find irritating is the sense that plot contrivances get used for whatever the writers feel will be popular and entertaining to fans, regardless of logic.  So hope if you want, if you think there’s enough fans that want Neal back that the writers would feel motivated to try to bring him back somehow, more than the number that want him to stay not just dead–but utterly forgotten.   All that matters is that the writers feel there’s a more  entertaining (ie good for ratings) story to be told bringing the character back than leaving them dead.   Unless and until that’s the case, Neal will stay dead and plenty of other dead-as-dead characters could return, and those of us who care about some kind of internal consistency, fairness, logic–we are just a minority in the audience. 

That leads to my other crack spec…If I’m giving them ideas, help us all…but..

Will is going to be Rumple’s other son and Robin’s half-brother.  Rumple never knew he impregnated Will’s mother, but he did, and it caused her to run off from Robin’s noble father and so Robin grew up without his mama or half-brother (sniff).  Rumple will discover this, and so all the Dearies who are upset Rumple lost his grown-up son will get to delight in the sorts of storyline of forgiveness, etc that could have been told between Rumple and Neal, and Neal and Henry only it will be with Will instead.  There’s no danger of shipping conflict, since Will is with Ana–aside from a “isn’t it cute how much he loves her ” moment of Hook being jealous until he realizes Will is in love with someone else.  Then they’ll be best friends, and maybe we’ll even get some reference to Liam and Neal, and how Hook feels Will is the brother he lost (implying Hook felt Neal was like his little brother or something even though we never saw that degree of closeness between them and when we did see closeness, it was more father/son).  

 

But for tent of hope..here’s some crack so crack its crackerjack spec for you (with some WL spoilers):

The reason they’re bringing Mal and Will, and all of this is they do intend to connect the dots of how Phillip came back, that mark on Neal’s hand and that it was a “magical” price death, combined with the Nyx that brought back Anna because it wasn’t her time, and a dash of altered timelines needing to be fixed, plus some Black Fairy explanations.  “Neal” will be dead (aside from the little brother) and Baelfire will live again–because there’s (Eddy’s words…) no greater obstacle than death.  Well if its an obstacle….as an audience, we’re supposed to root for that to be overcome right, against all odds?

[kfchimera]

So it’s crack theory time for me, with this latest bit of news.

  A few days ago I mocked that the only way Neal might return is if there’s some “misunderstood” villain so violently in love with him so he can be her happy ending–and tah, dah, we get news of Maleficient’s return from the dead.   Obviously this is a sign they intend to put her in a romance with “also dead” Neal–perhaps they meet in whatever sort of afterlife exists in the Onceiverse–and Cora hooks the two of them up, because you know,  Cora’s all about helping people in love- she was just so misunderstood!   Much as I loved the potential of  SF, I can’t help but think that Mal’s actress is so capable of sass, this could prove to be even better than a romantic, serious  SF story–because tonally, the show should not be taking itself that seriously anymore.  Imagine if they give her some meta-lines that sort of mock the plot holes (“My cousin was a dragon who came to the world without magic because he wanted to find out the secret to using candles to trap shadows”), character shifts and everything else–oh I might have to start watching again.  I’m not going to hold my breath though.

 

“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

[kfchimera]

I am nodding my head so much to Slurpeez and Ranisha and the rest that I feel like a bobble head doll.

It is not necessarily the physical looks, but that intersection of personality with looks.

I think I linked this before, but I heard part of an interview with Jorma Taccone who plays Booth on Girls (I don’t watch the show)–and he said something interesting, which he repeated in an interview with Cosmo (linking article, but beware it IS Cosmo, talking about an HBO show, so no filters!) Jorma

Cosmo: Fans have been so titillated by Booth since his “I know how to do things” line in season one. Do girls just like jerks?

Jorma: Ladies seem very intrigued by a guy who is ultra confident and acts like he doesn’t need you. There is some element of charm working with Booth. It could be that he seems deeply interested in [Marnie] and that interest can wane or be removed at any time. But I’ve been really surprised that ladies of all ages seemed to think that line was really hot. He’s such a jerk and he’s so into himself. Why can’t ladies like nice guys?

(end quote)

I think the problem here is that ladies DO like nice guys–but often TV writers split characters into either “insecure but nice ” or “confident but a jerk/witch”  and so its like you have to choose, and someone who’s antagonistic makes for sparky tv–so TV writers often choose the latter.   IF you can write the confident but jerky guy becoming nicer, just as easily as the insecure guy gaining confidence, well the end point is the same, someone who is confident but still compassionate.  So I don’t think its necessarily  women like jerks thing so much as the confidence aspect of it, that I think draws people in.

TV Shippers EW article This was written in 2012, and some thoughts from Eddy back on Emma and Graham.  ‘Romance, the journey to find love, that’s all ingrained in the very DNA of what we’re trying to do,” says exec producer Edward Kitsis. ”It’s great to go online and see that choices paid off for you.”  Then there’s this line they’re probably quoting Eddy on “All great relationships start off with hope, and the hope that it can overcome all obstacles. What greater obstacle is there than death?””
What indeed–and quite curiously, back in 2012 I’d have read that as them hinting maybe Huntsman returns, but now?  I don’t apply it to Neal because of the way the marketing team and writers continues to push the “Misunderstood” Villain-Shippers Fairy tale angle .    If that’s really what this show is about, then I don’t see Neal having much place in it–unless they invent some misunderstood villainess who this whole time was desperately in love with Neal but he was too hung up on Emma to notice her or the things she did to protect him /help him.  Then they could bring him back for HER happy ending–but it wouldn’t be about Neal or Emma, doing the right thing or any of that sort of classic fairy tale stuff we saw with Snow and Charming–because that apparently is boring.

 

 

“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

[kfchimera]

Here is the link to that article I mentioned.

Does Fan Service Ruin Television

 

I don’t care about “endgame”–having seen LOST,  what really matters is narrative focus. Endgame can sometimes be pretty subjective/ambiguously written, plus its like the last 1% of the story.   The narrative right now is not, obviously, on the relationship between Neal and Emma, and I think its poorer for that, but what worries me is the point of view the writers have about what they think fans want to see.   If its true that they’re going to explore Henry having a crush before giving us a story about him making a REAL friend his own age, or even how he really feels about never seeing those friends in NY again, or a million other things–that’s just …words fail me.  

“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

[kfchimera]

So much to catch up on, none of it inspiring too much hope, mainly because a lot of my doom comes from my awareness of things writers say about Hollywood.  There is a reason the screenwriters for the Hobbit chose to invent Tauriel, bring in Legolas and forgo  the prosthetics for some of the dwarves, when none of the original story had a romantic triangle in the Hobbit like that.  Jackson and Boyans are pretty geeky, reverent almost to Tolkein but at the end of the day what makes a good movie cinematically,  and commercially are not always what makes a good story in a book. There is an article I saw about fan pandering, will have to link another time but though it did not mention OUAT, feels spot on about this show.  A&E want to keep their jobs, and jobs for all their staff, that is what they want.  Of course they choose to write things in various ways, but if there is debate in the writers room, and room for creativity, if they had to sit down with MRJ when they figured out where it was “going to go” , it sounds to me they did not know it would go to this place when they made him a regular.  It also seems from the backtracking on no flashbacks to maybe, cannot say and that with how time works on the show, that maybe, that they are at least aware that there is a divide in the fandom, not consensus that Neal dying was just a totally great thing in this story of hope and second chances. I want them to understand that, regardless of what they choose to do, want to write or say,  NOW,that my interpretation is based very much on things they themselves said  at earlier points in time, things they must have known but did not say so it feels like they either lied or changed their mind,  finally the things they cut out.  I know they radically reinvent things like Runple’s dad, as it is about shock and  twists, misleading turns, and devoting screen time to characters and events that apparently we should just ignore  since the characters do. [Spoiler] Hook getting a wardrobe change does not bother me overly much, nor finding a new moniker for him.  Even Cora got a power  suit in S B, and we do not refer to her exclusively as Queen of Hearts, nor to The Dark One, Or The Evil Queen, nor any other character by their evil Archetype name.  Trouble is Killian was imbued by some in  the fandom  with a meaning of a romance novel pirate personality, that strips the character of some complexity and his flaws.  [/spoiler] Do the character flaws matter?   They did not in S3 but perhaps the next shock could be that suddenly they do.  I am not hoping for that sudden bad writing flip flop, that I think inevitably would come from making characters care about things they previously expressed  no worries over, danced around, or did not discuss when it would have made more sense to discuss.  I can call Colin’s character Jones rather than imply positives he has not earned, nor negatives he in part did overcome (he is not a anything for revenge, evil lackey for hire no questions asked type right now, so that is growth, but it feels like they gain a lot of that by showing us more unscrupulous acts in the past to say see how much better he is now, rather than writing him as acting in clearly more noble ways. ) Slurpeez pointed out the scenes that are offputting, but I do not assume the writers mean to do anything with it, as they are too caught up in writing a villain fairytale.  I guess I will believe that A and E think virtues matter when they write like it does, but their choices for Neal, Graham and even last-minute redemption for August suggest not so much.  If their story is like Regina said about Joanna being murdred by Cora, see being good gets you nowhere–the key is to be bad but convince people, even yourself, that you want to be good so they forgive anything you do, even if you keep doing it, then it is a story I find disturbing.

“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

[kfchimera]

So much to catch up on, none of it inspiring too much hope, mainly because a lot of my doom comes from my awareness of things writers say about Hollywood.  There is a reason the screenwriters for the Hobbit chose to invent Tauriel, bring in Legolas and forgo  the prosthetics for some of the dwarves, when none of the original story had a romantic triangle in the Hobbit like that.  Jackson and Boyans are pretty geeky, reverent almost to Tolkein but at the end of the day what makes a good movie cinematically,  and commercially are not always what makes a good story in a book.

There is an article I saw about fan pandering, will have to link another time but though it did not mention OUAT, feels spot on about this show.  A&E want to keep their jobs, and jobs for all their staff, that is what they want.  Of course they choose to write things in various ways, but if there is debate in the writers room, and room for creativity, if they had to sit down with MRJ when they figured out where it was “going to go” , it sounds to me they did not know it would go to this place when they made him a regular.  It also seems from the backtracking on no flashbacks to maybe, cannot say and that with how time works on the show, that maybe, that they are at least aware that there is a divide in the fandom, not consensus that Neal dying was just a totally great thing in this story of hope and second chances.

I want them to understand that, regardless of what they choose to do, want to write or say,  NOW,that my interpretation is based very much on things they themselves said  at earlier points in time, things they must have known but did not say so it feels like they either lied or changed their mind,  finally the things they cut out.  I know they radically reinvent things like Runple’s dad, as it is about shock and  twists, misleading turns, and devoting screen time to characters and events that apparently we should just ignore  since the characters do.

Hook getting a wardrobe change does not bother me overly much, nor finding a new moniker for him.  Even Cora got a power  suit in S B, and we do not refer to her exclusively as Queen of Hearts, nor to The Dark One, Or The Evil Queen, nor any other character by their evil Archetype name.  Trouble is Killian was imbued by some in  the fandom  with a meaning of a romance novel pirate personality, that strips the character of some complexity and his flaws.

Do the character flaws matter?   They did not in S3 but perhaps the next shock could be that suddenly they do.  I am not hoping for that sudden bad writing flip flop, that I think inevitably would come from making characters care about things they previously expressed  no worries over, danced around, or did not discuss when it would have made more sense to discuss.  I can call Colin’s character Jones rather than imply positives he has not earned, nor negatives he in part did overcome (he is not a anything for revenge, evil lackey for hire no questions asked type right now, so that is growth, but it feels like they gain a lot of that by showing us more unscrupulous acts in the past to say see how much better he is now, rather than writing him as acting in clearly more noble ways. ) Slurpeez pointed out the scenes that are offputting, but I do not assume the writers mean to do anything with it, as they are too caught up in writing a villain fairytale.  I guess I will believe that A and E think virtues matter when they write like it does, but their choices for Neal, Graham and even last-minute redemption for August suggest not so much.  If their story is like Regina said about Joanna being murdred by Cora, see being good gets you nowhere–the key is to be bad but convince people, even yourself, that you want to be good so they forgive anything you do, even if you keep doing it, then it is a story I find disturbing.

“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

[kfchimera]

I try to pop by sometimes, miss you guys too!  I’m more often on my tablet or phone  where it is just too annoying to write a reply to anything, so I kind of have to make time to go type with an actual keyboard.  This sometimes proves not worth the trouble due to kiddos and their antics when it comes to things that have screens.   Luckily, the hubby took the kiddos out to get a treat after dinner and I pleaded the need for a small respite, and I finally could post a hello.

I definitely agree with the last few posts about shiny toys, and the over-importance of romance now versus well, other stuff.  Enjoy the ranching!

 

“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

[kfchimera]

“Meanwhile Back at the Ranch” –the quote phrase to introduce a new line of conversation or end an embarrassing one, according to Urban Dictionary.  I ‘m out of the loop on the Ranch, so not sure if that was part of what inspired the name but if not–too appropriate for how conversations go here on the thread anyway!

I’ve missed a bit, and so I’m just going to let my thoughts ramble like some bison on the wild open ranges and make of it what you will (or won’t).

Slurpeez–that post pages back of yours about Soulmates was very well said.  It almost inspired me to go into the other thread just to add my own perspective on what True Love, Soulmates and such mean, but I thought better of it  Here’s what I wanted to say.

There’s a psychologist, Sternberg who modeled romantic love around three elements, Intimacy (specifically, emotional connection formed through disclosures and trust about one’s thoughts and feelings) Passion (the physiological arousal and desire two people feel for each other) and finally, Commitment (the cognitive choice they make to be together and to exclude other relationships).

This model works to describe many different types of romantic relationships, everything from two people who are smitten but just getting to know each other, to what Sternberg called “Consumate Love”–people who have commitment, passion and a great degree of trust between them.  I’d say Snowing are like that, plus some mystical magical enduring quality that works despite time and place and curses. Yet it does sort of make me wonder, could you have a romantic relationship with someone that, because one of these elements isn’t fully formed like Passion, that somehow you could “truly love” that person, yet it isn’t somehow your ultimate Snowing style relationship?  Or vice versa, might characters have a very passionate connection, yet it ends up falling apart because the choices they make don’t encourage enough emotional, honest discussion between them?

Writers always ask audiences to infer things as happening off-screen.    So I suppose I can infer some trust and disclosures without needing to see them, but its definitely disconcerting to say the least, to be shown things that imply lack of disclosure and then be shown Passion or Commitment as if that’s some cure-all for lack of Intimacy (again, using those terms with the Sternberg model meanings).      So whatever the writers mean by Soulmate–its something I’ll discover their meaning as their story unfolds, and not before then.  I’ve seen too many other writers /producers throw that term around for relationships that have utterly different trajectories.

I make no predictions for this show, because the writers are too enamored of the “Just because this, doesn’t mean that, even though “this” usually mans “that”” plot twists.     Just because an Evil Queen curses an entire town of people and tries to kill a woman and her daughter repeatedly doesn’t mean she can’t eventually learn to shoot out pure light magic and be happily part of their family.   Just because a man wrestles with his history of cowardice and selfishness, only to sacrifice his life out of love, doesn’t mean he’s totally dead or  has conquered his dark curse.   So maybe, just because you think something is your happy ending, doesn’t mean it is…. but then next they’ll say, it doesn’t mean it isn’t.  The minute the characters seem to think they’ve found happiness, and the audience seems to think we know what that is for them, perhaps its sort of the job of the writers to toss it all into the air and scramble it.   I wouldn’t object to that so much if they didn’t keep finding Plot Device heavy ways of going about that, to the point I’m not sure who these characters are from one week to the next,  or why I should even root for them.

I shall be happily in that Graham Wall tent of Mockery because (like Graham) it looks tasty and sweet.  Whether or not they ever bring back Neal (and I can’t imagine they’ve immediate plans for it),  just please cast another actor so MRJ can be spared the aggravation of people insulting his acting, looks and general personal style.   Neal deserved a happier ending, as did August.  Graham too, but at least his death had meaning in the season in which it happened–not sure with all the later twists and turns that it still does, but that might be why his name comes up too, because if they can just whitewash this act of Regina’s, she’ll be even more redeemed in the audience eyes, so hey, look, she never killed Graham now!  It only seemed like she did, that would work right?  Maybe that’s how they’ll spin it.

 

Meanwhile…back at the ranch…

 

 

 

 

 

“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

[kfchimera]

Those rainbow cakes look so pretty.

Ranisha, you have me watching Grimm, but I’m only on episode 2.  So far, so good.

I want to clarify something –though I think most of you got what I meant–my head-desk moment reading the Frozen screenwriter/director’s interview  isn’t that I disagree with her with what she said–BUT it’s that I so loved what she said that I wish I could believe OUAT’s writing staff had that mindset, because I feel they don’t.   It gives me a knot in the pit of my stomach to think about how emotionally vulnerable, raw and exposed to stress they make Emma, how steeped in loss and conflict, how out of her element, before they chose to develop romantic moments for her.   The way they showed Neal giving her space, being willing to step-aside from his romantic pursuit of her , recognizing her needs and wants, yet wanting her to know he’d support her because her happiness matters to him even if it isn’t conducive to his happiness–that made me think they got it.  I thought they were going to have Emma sort out her life first, come to terms with her status as mother, daughter and Savior, life the universe and almost everything.  Then they killed Neal and well as I said, I feel like a few pages were ripped out of the story there.  I know its a story they aren’t done telling, and for that reason I’m trying to motivate myself to give them some more leeway and continue hearing them out.

The fact they added WL writers is something I’m not sure if it is a good thing or a bad thing.  I loved Wonderland, but it did start slow.  The fact Lasseter went up to the set to talk to people is something that reassures me–but then  he went only to protect the Frozen characters.  So when we hear some marketing and fandom PR talk and I lose my enthusiasm once again.   The whole “misunderstood” villain thing is ok if it isn’t being used to sidestep the reform and change part,  the transformation to less selfish people, but right now, I feel the show shifted when the writers started thinking Elsa was in the same category as people who actually intentionally did bad things for the purpose of doing the bad things.    WL had the Will and Ana relationship that I found surprisingly moving.

I’ll put this in spoilers since technically WL is a different show.

I didn’t like Ana at first, and I didn’t think she deserved her second chance, not the way she was going about trying to get it.   When she stopped being villainous though, and started admitting her flaws, that’s when I began glimpse a bit of why I might root for her to work things out with Will.  By the time he’s convincing her what they have is love, true love, I totally bought her as a completely changed and redeemed person, but what sold it to me was that moment where thinking she’d forever lost Wil, she was still going to fight for WL, for the people.  There was nothing implying he had a less-than true impression of her when he admitted he still loved her.   That was everything I could have wanted in a speech for Neal and Emma and I can’t help but wonder if WL grew out of ideas they were too fond of to throw away when they couldn’t, for various reasons, use them on the main show. 

 

“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

[kfchimera]

That gifset hurts.

PoM– You hit that nail so hard on the head it screamed out for mercy.

Often its easy to get caught up in the relationships of the characters in a ship to each other, or thinking of their individual arcs, or discussing themes of love and the classifications of it.  Turning from that to simply looking at the narrative whiplash and pot holes, as in the post linked by Rainbow–really helps reinforce the sense I have of sort of  reading a story that had a bunch of pages ripped out of it.

I do get the parallel journey of Hook, Regina and Rumple from the archetype villains who do bad things to more anti-heroic redeemed characters that are misunderstood to be seen in the same light as the typical example of that archetype.   I see the attempts to develop them yet preserve some inner conflict, the temptation to revert to type.   Rumple is the slightly crazy, selfish sadistic trickster–but unlike Pan who was also in that space, his actions and masterplan was all originally about finding his son more so than just extending his own life.  Regina is the revenge fueled, envious/jealous super-powered witch with issues, but unlike Zelena, she managed to put aside that hate to focus on her son and his  family.  Then there’s Hook–the loyalty-challenged, morality challenged pirate, but also the seducer who tries to charm women for a nefarious purpose.  Mostly we see him shot down, aside from Hook and Milah or background “wenches” in taverns.  They presented a foil for him with Blackbeard for his pirate side (except the whole point of the story showed he was still acting to type, even if later he told Emma and Smee more or less, his heart wasn’t in it), but I think next season will likely have a huge chunk of showing a contrast between him and an example of the charming seducer example.   That’s a bit of a spoiler regarding Frozen/next season so will block this out a bit.

I am anticipating a lot of next season will be showing how Hook isn’t Prince Hans, in the same way they used Pan and Zelena to help sell reform for Rumple and Regina. 

That hunch gives me a lot of pause when I think about a few things the director and screenwriter of Frozen said in an interview.  ScriptNotes –there’s a thread with the link elsewhere in the forums that I saw, and its a fascinating thing to read.

I’m going to quote this exchange from it.

And Frozen it’s like it’s about fear versus love. And, you know, well, she just met him and married him. Of course you don’t know him. He could turn out to be horrible. You got to get to know someone.

It’s like they go right to it.

Aline: Yes, she’s made that mistake. And the funny is anytime you’ve ever dated anyone who turned out to be a creep, it’s not like in the beginning it was awesome.

Jennifer: It wasn’t like he was like, “Ha, ha, ha, ha.”

Aline: Right. No, in the beginning he’s actually — the creepy ones almost seem the most charming and the most prince-like. You’ve taught girls an important lesson.

John: To me the important lesson is that if you’re unhappy in your life and you’re feeling shut down and no one understands you –

Aline: Yes. Yes.

John: You’re going to fall for the first guy who seems like he understands you.

Aline: Boy, that’s it.

Jennifer: Yes.

John: And everything is going to seem wonderful and perfect, but it doesn’t mean that he’s actually a good guy.

Aline: That’s exactly right. She’s latched onto something for those wrong reasons.

Jennifer: And we all do. And I think — I have to say, I mean, I grew up on Disney. I was a Disney kid. Like, I wanted to be an animator. I was an escapist, so Disney was perfect. I could escape right into that.

But, as much as I love them — now I work for Disney — it would have been nice to have the one that says, “Don’t do that.” And for me, I mean, maybe I would have learned it a lot earlier in life and not at 40. [laughs]

Aline: I actually have to, when I look at those things, I actually have to force myself to look at the prince as something other than a man or a love story, because some of those movies which are so wonderful, they just are selling romantic love, so over-selling it to a point that you don’t really want to say that to girls.

Jennifer: No. I agree. I mean, I have a ten-year-old daughter.

Aline: That’s an aspect of the love you’re going to experience in your life, but there’s going to be –

Jennifer: I wish someone had said, “Your best friend is probably the one who’s right for you as the guy,” instead of saying, “It’s the hot guy who looks at you those ways.”

Aline: Well, you did say that.

Jennifer: The saxophone.

Aline: You said that to the tune of $765 million so far. And I do think, I mean, one of the reasons I was so elated when the movie was over is it’s just so rare to see a movie that tells a story about women’s lives and girl’s lives that has this other emphasis to it and doesn’t say — you know, she ends up kissing a boy. It’s not, because sometimes you have the other thing which is it’s a very empowering movie about women but they weirdly kind of end up alone and an addict somehow.

I bolded that line   because it made me head-desk.

“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

[Author]

Posts