Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Age on this show is tricky when they have the same actress playing both their younger and their present day selves with little distinction between the two. In reality, Victoria Smurfit is 41 and was asked to play a 20 year old. When the ink spilled on her and she became the Cruella we know now, she looked more her actual real age and less the 20 year old we met. It could be magic, or it could just be the actress getting back into her wheelhouse, which is to say portraying her character in the way she did everyday, which is more in line with her own age.
Also, we don’t know how long it was between the ink spill and her going to the EF–mostly because we have no idea when that happened or even how that happened. Rumple seems to know Cruella but they’ve never met for the first time on screen thus far. Either he went to her, or she came over not long after the ink spill.
[adrotate group="5"]"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Spells, I think are temporary while curses can be permanent if not broken.
That might work quite well, actually, given that Emma isn’t pure love and goodness and Lily, from what we’ve seen thus far, isn’t some unholy demon.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"There is another possibility. For all we know, both theories concerning where Adam and Eddy decided on the name Lily could be correct. Would be interesting if we could get a concrete answer from them in an interview.
Sure, absolutely. I think that’s likely given their love of popular culture and myth. There is no reason why it can’t be both. But the full parallel the movie is more than just “the antagonist is named Lily” since the movie is fairly more complex than that, as I stated in my first post, a page back.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Um, and how do you even know this? Are you A or E? Didn’t think so. This is just my theory, just like yours is just a theory. There are no right or wrong ones here. We can’t say for certain what is or isn’t until it’s been proven on the show, and nowhere have they explained where Lily got her name.
In order for her to be named after the character in Black Swan, you’d have to show a connection that is more than superficial–more than just a name. Lily, in the recent movie, is not actually evil, she is not actually the antagonist. Nina is. *That’s* your connection to the movie, if there is one. Emma is the Black Swan (as A and E have said in past interviews) if she gives into the darkness, just as Nina in the movie is the Black Swan once she is pushed too far–just like Emma has been pushed to her breaking point this season. You’re simply noticing that two characters share a name and relationship to something Swan-y. That’s fine, but you’re stopping at the full parallel.
Duh. And there is also a reason they are only referring to her as LILLY from now on. Do you know what the title of this next episode is? It’s LILY, not Lilith
They did not randomly give her the name Lilith. We all knew going in that her name was Lily, but most assumed it would be Lilian. Then we see the pentagram on her wrist and we learn that her name is Lilith. It’s a fairly easy connection given typical Hollywood tropes of what signifies “evil” and “demon”–ie: pentagrams, never mind what their actual historical connotation is. In Jewish literature Lilith is the mother of evil/demons. So you have a Lilith, a pentagram, and later in this arc we learned that she apparently had “darkness” cast into her. It’s not a tenuous connection to harken her to the mythological and Biblical one. And it certainly has more of a leg to stand on than just “there was a Lily in the Black Swan movie”
Are you aware that while there may be Biblical references in the show that this is first and foremost a show about FAIRY TALES
Goodness, what do you think fairy tales are if not the constant reaffirmation of some of the oldest tropes and archeytypes and stock characters of the universe as best exemplified by religious traditions, be they of the classic pantheon variety, of Judo-Christian, or other? It is not as if Fairy Tales are on one side of the line and the Bible in on another. Folk tales, legends, fairy tales, myths, religious stories…they are all pretty much working together. Why do think there are so many similarities in stories?
This is my opinion. I respect yours, even though it’s wrong. 😉
You’re more entitled to your opinion, your theory, your whatever. But your evidence is rather specious and I’m pointing that out. Also, please do not tell people they are wrong. We believe in constructive debating here; not “you’re wrong! I’m right! You’ll see!” I respect your opinion but this is a debate. I’m allowed to point out the flaws in your theories.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"So you think Lily being named after the antagonist character in Black Swan is purely coincidence? And that the random biblical reference is more plausible? Okay.
Lily in OUAT was not named after the antagonist in Black Swan. Lily is a highly common name and you have not proven that she was absolutely named after a character in a movie any more than you’ve proven that she was named Lily simply because A and E liked the name. She’s not LILY—she’s Lilith. There is a reason why they had her father say her full name in 405–Lily is common, Lilith is not and has is far more tied to mythology.
Also, are you *aware* of how many Biblical names there are in this show? Their names providing some parallels to the character’s story and arcs? You think one movie from a few years ago has more symbolic weight than the Bible? For storytellers? Who are literally taking their main character down the road that is probably the oldest story in the world–the heroes journey?
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Thanks WR and Slurpeez!
There should be a disclaimer at the start of every episode like at the start of a movie to turn off a cell phone: “Please, turn of your brain, now.
Yup. @TheWatcher raised a question in another thread: do the writers not think about their show hard enough or do we, the audience, think too hard? A and E would really like if we didn’t try to think about the show too hard. Just accept “magic” as a catchall answer but humans are rarely accepting of such a simplistic (and let’s face it, often nonsensical) answer as “magic” so we keep trying to dig deeper while A and E keep handing us more SHINY to distract from the fact that we’re not getting any where.
It’s giving them the old razzle dazzle, to quote Chicago. Stun the audience enough and they’ll never think twice. For example: A and E pull a rabbit from a hat. While you’re busy trying to see if the rabbit is good, bad, morally grey, and figure out how the rabbit fits into the larger worldly and mythological construct, A and E have set the auditorium on fire and are begging you to Tweet about it.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Though it seems that the Apprentice believed that he did something? Unless the whole dialogue with Snowing was ad-libbed by the author, and then when the Apprentice says “How could you make me do this to a child?” he’s actually talking about separating Lilly from Mal, effectively orphaning her?
That’s what I thought. The Apprentice is a Puppet and is “reading” his lines as the Author writes them, but in the end, the magic isn’t real? Can the Author actually cast magical spells? He can write people having magic (Cruella) but can his words–his mumbo jumbo–actually cause real magic? It was remarked that this was one of the few times we’ve heard a spell uttered out loud. It was an oddity because normally spells are snapped, waved, poofed, of chemically combined without the “silly incantations” to quote Professor Snape
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Thanks @Nevermore
Actually, the goodification of Hook does the character no favors — at this point he’s a species of Marty Stu with guyliner.
Marty Stu and former rogue bad boy saved by the love of a good woman.
I wouldn’t care about Hook getting redeemed (it’s in line with the show and their villains) but the fact that all Hook had to do was simply show up when Rumple and Regina have been put through the wringer (and in the former’s case to the point where I barely recognize the character anymore). But with Hook, suddenly the hinted at “dirty work” suddenly becomes “getting cake” and the vile deeds we have seen–beating Belle, shooting Belle, leaving Team Princess in jail to die–is all just “forgotten and forgiven”
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"#3
One more #OnceUponATime #scripttease — hope to see ya tonight! pic.twitter.com/uoPjH55mPP
— Adam Horowitz (@AdamHorowitzLA) April 26, 2015
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"The real question, for me, is whether or not anything actually *happened* when the Apprentice put on his show. Despite apparently casting out all the darkness, Emma has still lied, stolen, be given over to jealousy, rage, and fits of temper, justifiably murdered Cruella, and had the Chernabog after her. And despite apparently casting that darkness INTO Lily, we saw a lovely compassionate giving and caring young girl in 405. I’m still not convinced the Apprentice did anything other than putting on an elaborate puppet show (at the hands of the Author who just wanted a better story)
As for the hair, the hair in Shattered Sight could only reverse the curse if that person had previously been affected by the Curse of SS. So, while magic is often used on OUAT, I guess Emma’s hair would have be similarly “cursed” in order to work on Lily (if that makes sense).
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"
