Once Upon A Time Season 4

[Admiral2]

Gathering all my thoughts together. Let’s start with the episode itself.


First, I was hoping against hope that Rumple leaving Storybrooke meant that Robert Carlyle was also leaving. I came thisclose to deciding to stick around. But, nope, Rumple ain’t gone so I am.


Still, all props to Belle for finally taking care of business...and the best part is with Rumple locked out of town she gets everything.


Am I glad Anna spoke up in time to save Hook? Since I could care less about Hook’s fate, not especially.


Emma and Regina being drinking buddies would be cool if they got sloppy, touchy-feely drunk and gave the SwanQueen shippers something to talk about...but we’ll never know cause their stupid son interrupted them (the little snot). Oh well. There’s always shipper fic.


Maleficent has always been my favorite Disney villainess. The actress here didn’t look anywhere near as good in the outfit as Angelina Jolie did.


I gotta ask...why is Cruella DeVil anywhere near this series? There’s nothing even fairy-tale like about 101 Dalmatians. At all.


Overall, a nice episode featuring the Great Terrible Super-Evil Plan of THE DARK ONE (dearie…) affecting lots of people I don’t care about anyway.


Now then, on to:


THE OUAT/FROZEN STORYLINE FINAL REPORT CARD


Elsa (Georgina Haig) A+


Nailed the look, nailed the mannerisms, nailed the body language...it just overall looked like Elsa walked right out of the motion picture and came to life. Awesome job.


Anna (Elizabeth Lail) A


Not as good as Georgina, but still a fantastic job from a first-timer.


Kristoff (Scott Michael Foster) B+


Somebody should have told him that the animated Kristoff managed a smile every now and then. Otherwise okay.


Hans (Tyler Jacob Moore) A


Ty just had to play a dick in a royal uniform. Nailed it.


Duke of Weselton (Jonathan Runyon) A


See above…


Ingrid (Elizabeth Mitchell) A-


The actress did a great job with a role that was essentially Elsa, Issue Zero, a princess with snow and ice powers overwhelmed by circumstance. (In fact her Ingrid was probably what Frozen’s Elsa was supposed to be before Idina Menzel’s singing ruined everything.) Yes, her ultimate Evil Plan was silliness incarnate, but we got a Snow-Queen throwdown out of it, which makes it all worth it.


Overall grade: Solid A


That’s my story and i’m sticking to it.

 

[Mr Light]

yeah, having Cruella De Ville as a big bad is a real head scratcher for me. She exists in modern day England. She has no magic powers. How in the world does she connect to the fantasy multi-verse? Are they going to give her powers? Is her evil plan still having Dalmation fur coats?

 

[Snaploud]

Yeah, Cruella De Ville has no business on this show. Though, I'll give it a pass if we get a cute Dalmatian as a main character.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Yeah, Cruella De Ville has no business on this show. Though, I'll give it a pass if we get a cute Dalmatian as a main character.

Pongo has already appeared. Plus the dogs in 101 Dalmatians are as smart as humans and can communicate on a level equal to humans as well!!!!!

 

[Nerys Myk]

I gotta ask...why is Cruella DeVil anywhere near this series? There’s nothing even fairy-tale like about 101 Dalmatians. At all.

Robin Hood isn't a fairy tale either. Nor is Frankenstein.

 

[Dream]

The more I think about it, the more I realize that Frozen on Once Upon a Time was genius cross marketing by Disney! I was worried it was too soon for the characters to appear on the show, but I now understand that next year would've been too late to take advantage the hype. Disney struck at the perfect time when it would make the biggest impact.

Many Frozen fans that didn't watch Once checked out the show, while those Once fans that didn't see the movie likely checked out the movie before the season started.

It was a win win for both the movie diversion and Once producers. They seem to be doing the same thing with Maleficent for the second half of this season. 101 Dalmatians is going to be released on Bluray next year, which is why I'm assuming Cruella De Ville has shown up!

 

[Admiral2]

I gotta ask...why is Cruella DeVil anywhere near this series? There’s nothing even fairy-tale like about 101 Dalmatians. At all.

Robin Hood isn't a fairy tale either. Nor is Frankenstein.

But Robin Hood is folklore, which is about same thing, and Frankenstein is a story set around the time many fairy tales are set, and it has a metaphysical element (resurrection).

101 Dalmatians is a movie set in the sixties based on a book set in the fifties about an insane rich Woman's crusade against cute animals. No magic, no mysticism, no folklore. It and its characters have no place in OUAT.

(BTW, those of you spelling Cruella's name De Ville: you're technically right but wrong in terms of the actual character. She's not a car. She's a Devil.)

The more I think about it, the more I realize that Frozen on Once Upon a Time was genius cross marketing by Disney! I was worried it was too soon for the characters to appear on the show, but I now understand that next year would've been too late to take advantage the hype. Disney struck at the perfect time when it would make the biggest impact.

Many Frozen fans that didn't watch Once checked out the show, while those Once fans that didn't see the movie likely checked out the movie before the season started.

It was a win win for both the movie diversion and Once producers. They seem to be doing the same thing with Maleficent for the second half of this season. 101 Dalmatians is going to be released on Bluray next year, which is why I'm assuming Cruella De Ville has shown up!

You're just figuring this out now? This was blindingly obvious when they first had Elsa walking out of that barn at the end of S3. OUAT's ratings were good but slipping and needed a boost, and meanwhile the animation side had this ridiculous hit based on a fairy tale. A blind chimpanzee could have figured out the potential involved.

It wasn't a perfect success though. I know at least one OUAT fan who even now refuses to see Frozen. My sister. She hates Idina Menzel's singing that much.

Also, even if you ignored the Frozen connection, how do you not see Disney's gift for cross promotion in that Regina bought Henry a bunch of Marvel comics to read, namely Agents of SHIELD and The Incredible Hulk?? Meanwhile, in an episode of Agents of SHIELD, Adrianne Palecki was seen in a pink t-shirt with the Star Wars logo emblazoned across her ample bosom, and several Marvel heroes appeared in an episode of the Disney cartoon Phineas and Ferb, and so on...

So yeah. Disney's a good cross promoter. Not news.

 

[Morpheus 02]

I gotta ask...why is Cruella DeVil anywhere near this series? There’s nothing even fairy-tale like about 101 Dalmatians. At all.

Robin Hood isn't a fairy tale either. Nor is Frankenstein.

But Robin Hood is folklore, which is about same thing, and Frankenstein is a story set around the time many fairy tales are set, and it has a metaphysical element (resurrection).

101 Dalmatians is a movie set in the sixties based on a book set in the fifties about an insane rich Woman's crusade against cute animals. No magic, no mysticism, no folklore. It and its characters have no place in OUAT.

Well, Once Upon a Time's characters, most of them anyway, have a connection with Disney's CARTOONS. And yes, that includes Robin Hood. (Perhaps even Frankenstein) We also have Fantasia being featured this season.

The OuaT reality may differ in a small way or a big way from the "original", but it's been done with Disney.

I agree that 101 Dalmatians is REAAALLLY stretching it. But OuaT takes familiar tales and sometimes puts a big twist on them. So what they hey?

Personally, I wouldn't mind a cameo from other properties like Star Wars & Marvel heroes (even more than they have already). Or at least the same actors in unexpected roles.

 

[Admiral2]

Robin Hood isn't a fairy tale either. Nor is Frankenstein.

But Robin Hood is folklore, which is about same thing, and Frankenstein is a story set around the time many fairy tales are set, and it has a metaphysical element (resurrection).

101 Dalmatians is a movie set in the sixties based on a book set in the fifties about an insane rich Woman's crusade against cute animals. No magic, no mysticism, no folklore. It and its characters have no place in OUAT.

Well, Once Upon a Time's characters, most of them anyway, have a connection with Disney's CARTOONS. And yes, that includes Robin Hood.

If that's the crux of your case why isn't Robin a talking fox or Little John a bear with the voice of Phil Harris?

(Perhaps even Frankenstein)

This is a Stretch Armstrong style stretch...

We also have Fantasia being featured this season.

And the part of Fantasia being cribbed is centered on sorcery, a staple of fairy tales and thus appropriate.

The OuaT reality may differ in a small way or a big way from the "original", but it's been done with Disney.

I agree that 101 Dalmatians is REAAALLLY stretching it. But OuaT takes familiar tales and sometimes puts a big twist on them. So what they hey?

How do you twist someone with no powers? Just all of a sudden give them to her like Emma? (Wait...)

Personally, I wouldn't mind a cameo from other properties like Star Wars & Marvel heroes (even more than they have already). Or at least the same actors in unexpected roles.

Let me know if it ever happens...

 

[Dr. Funkenstein]

If that's the crux of your case why isn't Robin a talking fox or Little John a bear with the voice of Phil Harris?

The same reason Jiminy Cricket is a tall slinky nerd, faeries were all full-sized human nuns, Pinnochio was a full-sized human dude, and so on and so forth. Oh, and the fact that everyone from Frozen isn't a cartoon character.

How do you twist someone with no powers? Just all of a sudden give them to her like Emma? (Wait...)

Or just treat them like normal humans. You know, like Prince Charming, Henry, Captain Hook, Baelfire, or the Knave of Hearts.

Let me know if it ever happens...

The fact that our Earth exists in the same multiverse as all the other worlds shown so far suggests very much that it could happen. Considering the existence of Kingdom Hearts, and there's no reason it couldn't aside from the show runner's desires. The infrastructure is certainly there already, as evident in the existence of Dr. Frankenstein -- which, despite claims otherwise, has as much in common with fairy tales as Star Wars does. Hell, that universe is clearly based on the old black-and-white movies, too, and those aren't even Disney properties.

 

[137th Gebirg]

^^^ Precisely. If anything could be inferred as being "real world" in OUaT, the Disney cartoons and Frankenstein story are all based on the book by "The Author", which in turn could either be based on the "real" people in the show as they originally lived in their respective realms, or somehow was used to manifest them and their realms into reality. Either way, in this world, the Disney animated characters in our world would have come dead last in the timeline.

I'm still on the fence on who "The Author"/Sorcerer might be. Some have thought that it might be Henry, come back in time. The "Apprentice" character may be the Sorcerer/Author himself (or an old Henry). He seems a little aged to still be an Apprentice. I'm still holding out for Rudyard Kipling, myself, with the "Operation Mongoose" thing and all, and the fact that we haven't seen any "Jungle Book" characters yet.

 

[Richard Baker]

I enjoy the twists OuaT puts on classic characters from fantasy and folklore (except Peter Pan- just hated him being both the heavy and Gold's father). My favorite was Red Riding hood being a werewolf.
The show seems to have run through most of the well known stories and is stretching a bit, but there is a lot out there still. I think recognition is the key- why add a story with characters from some obscure source that nobody has heard of? Taking fictional characters and making them into relatable humans is what this show does best, even if everybody seems to have to be related to each other. I know 'family' is an important theme, but it is getting both predictable and old now...

 

[Tom Hendricks]

Mickey Mouse

 

[Admiral2]

Let me know if it ever happens...

The fact that our Earth exists in the same multiverse as all the other worlds shown so far suggests very much that it could happen. Considering the existence of Kingdom Hearts, and there's no reason it couldn't aside from the show runner's desires. The infrastructure is certainly there already, as evident in the existence of Dr. Frankenstein -- which, despite claims otherwise, has as much in common with fairy tales as Star Wars does. Hell, that universe is clearly based on the old black-and-white movies, too, and those aren't even Disney properties.

Okay, but what I really meant by "Let me know" is that I ain't sticking around reg'larly to see for myself. I've seen what I wanted to see out of this nonsense. You're welcome to it.

So fine, Cruella belongs and Frankenstein belongs and anything can be dropped in cause that's what the producers want. Awesome. I'll come back when Christine, Cujo and Carrie show up and the Author is revealed to be Stephen King. (It is Maine, after all...)

 

[Nerys Myk]

I gotta ask...why is Cruella DeVil anywhere near this series? There’s nothing even fairy-tale like about 101 Dalmatians. At all.

Robin Hood isn't a fairy tale either. Nor is Frankenstein.

But Robin Hood is folklore, which is about same thing, and Frankenstein is a story set around the time many fairy tales are set, and it has a metaphysical element (resurrection).

Robin Hood is usually set in a certain time and place (often England in the 16th/17th Century) and plays more as historical fiction. Not much magic in most tellings.

Frankenstein was published in 1818 and takes place in the 1700s. Long after the time most fairy tale are set. Grimm's Fairy Tales was first published in 1812 and the tales were old even then. "Cinderella" has been traced as far back as the 6th Century, BC.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Robin Hood isn't a fairy tale either. Nor is Frankenstein.

But Robin Hood is folklore, which is about same thing, and Frankenstein is a story set around the time many fairy tales are set, and it has a metaphysical element (resurrection).

Robin Hood is usually set in a certain time and place (often England in the 16th/17th Century) and plays more as historical fiction. Not much magic in most tellings.

Frankenstein was published in 1818 and takes place in the 1700s. Long after the time most fairy tale are set. Grimm's Fairy Tales was first published in 1812 and the tales were old even then. "Cinderella" has been traced as far back as the 6th Century, BC.

This is the fist I've heard of that rather late setting for Robin Hood. The Errol Flynn movie The Adventures of Robin Hood is set circa 1191, during the reign of Richard the Lionheart, who reigned from 1189 to 1199. According to wiki, traditional ballads of Robin themselves date from the 15th century.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I'm still going with Walt Disney as the author.

 

[Nerys Myk]

But Robin Hood is folklore, which is about same thing, and Frankenstein is a story set around the time many fairy tales are set, and it has a metaphysical element (resurrection).

Robin Hood is usually set in a certain time and place (often England in the 16th/17th Century) and plays more as historical fiction. Not much magic in most tellings.

Frankenstein was published in 1818 and takes place in the 1700s. Long after the time most fairy tale are set. Grimm's Fairy Tales was first published in 1812 and the tales were old even then. "Cinderella" has been traced as far back as the 6th Century, BC.

This is the fist I've heard of that rather late setting for Robin Hood. The Errol Flynn movie The Adventures of Robin Hood is set circa 1191, during the reign of Richard the Lionheart, who reigned from 1189 to 1199. According to wiki, traditional ballads of Robin themselves date from the 15th century.

You're right. No idea where I pulled that date from.

 

[Admiral2]

Robin Hood isn't a fairy tale either. Nor is Frankenstein.

But Robin Hood is folklore, which is about same thing, and Frankenstein is a story set around the time many fairy tales are set, and it has a metaphysical element (resurrection).

Robin Hood is usually set in a certain time and place (often England in the 16th/17th Century) and plays more as historical fiction. Not much magic in most tellings.

Frankenstein was published in 1818 and takes place in the 1700s. Long after the time most fairy tale are set. Grimm's Fairy Tales was first published in 1812 and the tales were old even then. "Cinderella" has been traced as far back as the 6th Century, BC.

And to this timely history lesson I say... see my last post.

 

[Nerys Myk]

But Robin Hood is folklore, which is about same thing, and Frankenstein is a story set around the time many fairy tales are set, and it has a metaphysical element (resurrection).

Robin Hood is usually set in a certain time and place (often England in the 16th/17th Century) and plays more as historical fiction. Not much magic in most tellings.

Frankenstein was published in 1818 and takes place in the 1700s. Long after the time most fairy tale are set. Grimm's Fairy Tales was first published in 1812 and the tales were old even then. "Cinderella" has been traced as far back as the 6th Century, BC.

And to this timely history lesson I say... see my last post.

Sorry but the hyperbole doesn't help your case. The OUAT show runners seem to be looking at classic iconic characters whom they have the rights to use either by licensing or the public domain. A Disney connection is also a plus. Places like Wonderland, Oz, and Neverland are recent creations in the grand scheme of things.( The latter two from the early 20th Century) If a certain magical Nanny shows up, her literary debut was in the 1930s. So a character from a book published in the 50s isn't all that of a stretch.

Non magical characters aren't off the table either as seen with Robin Hood and Dr. Frankenstein. Frankly I'd like to see a OUAT land that features American legends like John Henry, Casey Jones,Pecos Bill and Johnny Appleseed or one drawn from Native American myth.