Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I’ve tweeted Adam and Keegan O’Connor, so let’s see if I (and presumably the hundreds of others tweeting them the same question) get a response.
FYI my question was if Blue was really dead or just MOSTLY dead a la Magic Max.
[adrotate group="5"]Slurpeez108 wrote: If we are going to see Oz then instead of Evil Glinda, how about the Wicked Witch of the West? That would be a major role, since she’s so iconic.
But shouldn’t she be dead in present day, assuming that whole traditional story went down some time before Jefferson visited Oz to find that the slippers had moved on?
I’m late to the party but… Nope. She could be Glinda and Dorothy could have “moved the slippers on” as per the story. Dorothy’s house landed on a different witch and squished her, taking her shoes afterwards. Then she melted the Wicked Witch before meeting Glinda at the end.
So ideas… “iconic villian” huh? And much loved. Hmm.
I like the idea of the Snow Queen, but suspect that isn’t well known to children outside of Europe (I’m certainly not familiar with it – I looked it up after going on the Flying Trunk ride at Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen) They could have grabbed the rights to Narnia when the recent contract came up for renewal, although that has now been sorted out. (Walden Media no longer involved, but film series still going with another studio working with 20th Century Fox. Next film will be The Silver Chair. More Eustace!)
There have been many Oz hints, so a Wicked Witch (whether East or West…. or a combination with Glinda) could make sense. Cruella de Ville is iconic but limited in storytelling unless they soup it up by mixing in another character.
Morgana, Morgan la Fay, Morgana of the Fairies…. that would be good. We’ve had Lancelot pop up, so more Camelot/Arthurian stuff isn’t beyond the pale or going off on a limb. I think it would sour some of Charming’s story though if it turns out he’s King Arthur’s long lost son though. The whole point is that he was a better Prince than many born to that role, and I like that about the way they’ve done the Prince Charming story on OUAT. Also not sure what they would do with the Arthurian legend either – go the Merlin TV show route, the Mists of Avalon route (Rumple’s Girl – agree. Good book. Bit wanky in parts but very engaging, decent read) or the more classical route. There’s lots of options there.
she was always supporting his head and neck. As long as you do that, there’s no right or wrong way to hold babies.
The crying stuff was more just to emphasise that Regina seemed to expect that because she got what she wanted (a baby to *love her*) then the baby would just play his part appropriately. She got the crash course that many parents get: i.e. it’s not actually about you mate. It’s about them.
I don’t think Malcolm can have a redemption arc. Even before he became Peter Pan, he was a selfish git who screwed up his life and his family – I mean, we can read between the lines of that episode. Mother Stiltskin left early on is my guess, sick of her husband spending all their money on grog and gambling (I have sympathy!) And Rumple, even though he was young, knew that his father was a feckless wastrel.
Yet Malcolm didn’t care. Given a magic bean, it wasn’t even let’s go to another realm where we can start again, it was let’s go to this place I went as a kid in my dreams where we can eat chocolate cake all day and fly. It’s all about him and his desires, not Rumple and Rumple’s needs which should be coming first as a parent (cf: Snowing putting Emma in the cupboard, even though it meant spending a lifetime apart, because it would keep her alive and break the curse)
You can’t redeem from that level of narcissistic selfishness. Not quickly. Unless Malcolm is going to be a recurring character for seasons upon seasons, he can’t have a redemption arc that is believable. And I don’t think he should. An integral part of fairytales have always been a lesson about morality – whether it’s tinged with religion or not (and I hope it’s not on OUAT), there is a lesson about acceptable behaviour in all fables and fairytales. Malcolm’s should be that if you put yourself first all the time and bugger the consequences, you’ll die alone and despised by all.
So I just knew someone was going to react to that example which is specifically why I said to set that conception aside…. I didn’t argue that suicide is selfish.
yes you did argue it was, by using it as an example of Snow’s selfishness. And if you knew that saying suicide is selfish would offend someone, then why say it?
So maybe our biggest issues is that it was a total let down after we’ve come to expect something twisty and mind turning.
DING DING DING we have a winner.
This is the issue that people are having with this. I don’t mind people saying “OK, that was a bit of a letdown as I was expecting more” but then endlessly overanalysing it in order to find that something more drives me bonkers. It is what it is!
I think that you are all massively overthinking this issue.
- It is a fictional TV show which is centred on fairytale characters, not family law procedure. This is Once Upon A Time, not Felicity or Judging Amy.
- Adoption, like many other family law issues, can be dealt with by a judge in chambers on the papers, without requiring parties to appear in court. Yes, I am pulling the “I am a lawyer” card. This is how this stuff works in the real world. No need to have a courtroom scene.
- would you rather have time spent watching Regina fill in paperwork, forging it, Rumple bending the system to make it look like she was approved for adoption 2 + years ago, dialogue including assumptions about previous checks by child services on the part of the agency etc etc etc…. or would you rather have stuff that actually advances the plot and character arcs? I know what I’d rather be watching
- It is not necessary for us to know all the minute details of the adoption in order to follow the plot. All that we need to know is what we saw:
a) Regina wants a child.
b) Regina turns to Gold to speed up the real world processes because she’s impatient.
c) Gold does something to do this. She gets a child.
d) Regina struggles with being a mother because babies don’t have on/off switches and can’t be lectured at.
e) Regina’s character develops as she mellows and lets her Little Prince take some of her Evil Queen edges off, becoming a good mother (in her own way) and moving past some of her issues.
Yes. Malcolm’s selfishness and bratty behaviour knows no bounds.
Want to fly. Can’t fly as must be a child. Can’t be a child with your own child there. Solution: get the creepy Shadow to take your child off somewhere where he won’t be your problem anymore. SIMPLE!
Want to stay young forever. Can’t. Work out a solution where he has to have the Heart of the Truest Believer. Spends hundreds of years hunting for said Heart. Finds it eventually and lies, connives and wheedles his way to getting what he wants…. in the process, emotionally tortures his now adult son, knocks out and kidnaps his grandson (for the second time!), manipulates his great-grandson, and captures his son in Pandora’s Box.
Pan is the epitome of of “look at all the f***s I don’t give.”
Let’s set aside the fact that many consider the act of suicide incredibly selfish in and of itself, as it gives little regard to those being left behind.
No I will not just let that slide :-/
Have you been suicidal? I have. It’s incredibly complex and it is not selfish. When I’ve wanted to kill myself I honestly, truly and deeply believed that I was such a problem for everyone around me that their lives would only be improved by my absence.
Now, objectively that may not be the case (for mum it certainly wouldn’t have been…. jury’s still out on other members of my family!) but the point is that in that moment when you’re considering this incredibly difficult and serious choice, it’s not about you. It is, but it’s not. It’s saying “I can’t go on, and I can’t go on ruining other’s lives by being this disasterous mistake of a person. It would be better for everyone if I wasn’t here.”
That is NOT selfish and I am not going to just let you say that without rebutting you.
