Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 52 (click to see context) from:
** I mean, female bluebirds look very similar to males (especially western bluebirds, which is what she looks like), just slightly more dull, so maybe she's just brightened up, being a cartoon. Honestly, she doesn't even look that much brighter than an actual female bluebird, IMO. Or maybe she's trans.
to:
** I mean, female bluebirds look very similar to males (especially western bluebirds, which is what she looks like), just slightly more dull, so maybe she's just brightened up, being a cartoon. Honestly, she doesn't even look that much brighter than an actual female bluebird, IMO. Or maybe she's trans.trans.
*** She became a bluebird after she was cursed by another bluebird for throwing a rock at it. She may have taken the coloration of the bird she upset.
*** She became a bluebird after she was cursed by another bluebird for throwing a rock at it. She may have taken the coloration of the bird she upset.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 51 (click to see context) from:
* Why is Beatrice blue? Her color pattern is that of a male bluebird.
to:
* Why is Beatrice blue? Her color pattern is that of a male bluebird.bluebird.
**I mean, female bluebirds look very similar to males (especially western bluebirds, which is what she looks like), just slightly more dull, so maybe she's just brightened up, being a cartoon. Honestly, she doesn't even look that much brighter than an actual female bluebird, IMO. Or maybe she's trans.
**I mean, female bluebirds look very similar to males (especially western bluebirds, which is what she looks like), just slightly more dull, so maybe she's just brightened up, being a cartoon. Honestly, she doesn't even look that much brighter than an actual female bluebird, IMO. Or maybe she's trans.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Additionally, considering the reoccuring theme of "don't always take things at face value", [[spoiler: the idea of the "Good Woman of the Woods" being an evil witch]] can easily go along with that.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 50 (click to see context) from:
* Why is Beatrice those blue? Her color pattern is that of a male bluebird.
to:
* Why is Beatrice those blue? Her color pattern is that of a male bluebird.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 49 (click to see context) from:
* Why do the squirrels have bowties on them? Who could've sewn a pair for each and every one of them?
to:
* Why do the squirrels have bowties on them? Who could've sewn a pair for each and every one of them?them?
* Why is Beatrice those blue? Her color pattern is that of a male bluebird.
* Why is Beatrice those blue? Her color pattern is that of a male bluebird.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 31 (click to see context) from:
*** Two: he knew about the Beast's nature, but was so desperate to [[spoiler:save his daughter]] that he convinced himself (or let himself be convinced by the Beast) that the tales of Edelwood trees being [[spoiler:lost souls]] were meer rumors and took the deal anyway, much like how [[spoiler:Greg]] still took the Beast's deal despite being told how the Beast worked. The Beast's whole modus operandi ''is'' exploiting people's desperation and despair, so it would be a reasonable tactic for him to try and pull.
to:
*** Two: he knew about the Beast's nature, but was so desperate to [[spoiler:save his daughter]] that he convinced himself (or let himself be convinced by the Beast) that the tales of Edelwood trees being [[spoiler:lost souls]] were meer mere rumors and took the deal anyway, much like how [[spoiler:Greg]] still took the Beast's deal despite being told how the Beast worked. The Beast's whole modus operandi ''is'' exploiting people's desperation and despair, so it would be a reasonable tactic for him to try and pull.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 31,32 (click to see context) from:
*** Two: he knew about the Beast's nature, but was so desperate to save his daughter that he convinced himself (or let himself be convinced by the Beast) that the tales of Edelwood trees being lost souls were meer rumors and took the deal anyway, much like how Greg still took the Beast's deal despite being told how the Beast worked. The Beast's whole modus operandi ''is'' exploiting people's desperation and despair, so it would be a reasonable tactic for him to try and pull.
*** Three: he knew, and the Beast exploited that knowledge to trick him into believing that the lantern was holding his daughter so the Beast could eat her, which led to the Woodsman "stealing" it from the Beast and feeding it the Edelwood just like the Beast wanted, while making the Woodsman think he was defying him instead.
*** Three: he knew, and the Beast exploited that knowledge to trick him into believing that the lantern was holding his daughter so the Beast could eat her, which led to the Woodsman "stealing" it from the Beast and feeding it the Edelwood just like the Beast wanted, while making the Woodsman think he was defying him instead.
to:
*** Two: he knew about the Beast's nature, but was so desperate to save [[spoiler:save his daughter daughter]] that he convinced himself (or let himself be convinced by the Beast) that the tales of Edelwood trees being lost souls [[spoiler:lost souls]] were meer rumors and took the deal anyway, much like how Greg [[spoiler:Greg]] still took the Beast's deal despite being told how the Beast worked. The Beast's whole modus operandi ''is'' exploiting people's desperation and despair, so it would be a reasonable tactic for him to try and pull.
*** Three: he knew, and the Beast exploited that knowledge to trick him into believing that the lantern washolding [[spoiler:holding his daughter daughter]] so the Beast could eat her, which led to the Woodsman "stealing" it from the Beast and feeding it the Edelwood just like the Beast wanted, while making the Woodsman think he was defying him instead.
*** Three: he knew, and the Beast exploited that knowledge to trick him into believing that the lantern was
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** There are several ways to explain his seeming cluelessness:
*** One: He genuinely didn't know. Perhaps because he lives away from most other people in an isolated house in the woods. Even if he did travel to any nearby towns to get supplies, it's possible that the townspeople would assume a man willingly living in the woods already knows about the Beast. Or, common knowledge of the Beast's trickery only became widely known AFTER the Woodsman had taken the deal--after all, he's implied to have been doing the job for many years by the time of the show.
*** Two: he knew about the Beast's nature, but was so desperate to save his daughter that he convinced himself (or let himself be convinced by the Beast) that the tales of Edelwood trees being lost souls were meer rumors and took the deal anyway, much like how Greg still took the Beast's deal despite being told how the Beast worked. The Beast's whole modus operandi ''is'' exploiting people's desperation and despair, so it would be a reasonable tactic for him to try and pull.
*** Three: he knew, and the Beast exploited that knowledge to trick him into believing that the lantern was holding his daughter so the Beast could eat her, which led to the Woodsman "stealing" it from the Beast and feeding it the Edelwood just like the Beast wanted, while making the Woodsman think he was defying him instead.
*** One: He genuinely didn't know. Perhaps because he lives away from most other people in an isolated house in the woods. Even if he did travel to any nearby towns to get supplies, it's possible that the townspeople would assume a man willingly living in the woods already knows about the Beast. Or, common knowledge of the Beast's trickery only became widely known AFTER the Woodsman had taken the deal--after all, he's implied to have been doing the job for many years by the time of the show.
*** Two: he knew about the Beast's nature, but was so desperate to save his daughter that he convinced himself (or let himself be convinced by the Beast) that the tales of Edelwood trees being lost souls were meer rumors and took the deal anyway, much like how Greg still took the Beast's deal despite being told how the Beast worked. The Beast's whole modus operandi ''is'' exploiting people's desperation and despair, so it would be a reasonable tactic for him to try and pull.
*** Three: he knew, and the Beast exploited that knowledge to trick him into believing that the lantern was holding his daughter so the Beast could eat her, which led to the Woodsman "stealing" it from the Beast and feeding it the Edelwood just like the Beast wanted, while making the Woodsman think he was defying him instead.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Given the Beast's preferred victims are children who are going to give up hope in the woods, it would lead us to believe anyone who is going to enjoy their time in the Unknown are probably worthless to that cause. Greg seems to carefree but it turns out still has confidence issues. If someone like Adelaide shows up it doesn't seem unlikely the Beast would reach some kind of agreement to co-exist with them. Adelaide seems to mostly want slaves and should her slaves runaway to the woods, they are perfect beast food. Seems like a good co-existence racket for both.
* Compared to the above why does it seem like most people in the Unknown know exactly what the Beast is and what he does but the Woodsman doesn't? The singer in the tavern quite literally spells what the beast is up to in clear song. Did no one try to warn him, or is he just on his own way to being a Edelwood tree himself one day.
* Compared to the above why does it seem like most people in the Unknown know exactly what the Beast is and what he does but the Woodsman doesn't? The singer in the tavern quite literally spells what the beast is up to in clear song. Did no one try to warn him, or is he just on his own way to being a Edelwood tree himself one day.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 42 (click to see context) from:
** Wirt would probably consider that stealing, given how resistant he was to taking money from Endicott at all, and so wouldn't want to do it. Then, because Beatrice was already having doubts about delivering Greg and Wirt to Adelaide at that point, she would probably have decided not to get the coins in the hopes that it would deter Wirt from going forward with the plan.
to:
** Wirt would probably consider that stealing, given how resistant he was to taking money from Endicott at all, and so wouldn't want to do it. Then, because Beatrice was already having doubts about delivering Greg and Wirt to Adelaide at that point, she would probably have decided not to get the coins in the hopes that it would deter Wirt from going forward with the plan.plan.
* Why do the squirrels have bowties on them? Who could've sewn a pair for each and every one of them?
* Why do the squirrels have bowties on them? Who could've sewn a pair for each and every one of them?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 29 (click to see context) from:
*** First one is that it never even crossed her mind that the bell could be used like that. She had used her approach for so long that it became like routine to her. It took an outsider like Wirt to come up with a fresh approach - after all, Wirt is pretty good at [[TakeAThirdOption thinking up alternative solutions to problems]].
to:
*** First one is that it never even crossed her mind that the bell could be used like that. She had used her approach for so long that it became like routine to her. There's a running theme in OTGW of the dangers of taking things at face value; Auntie Whispers' bell "commands" the spirit and keeps it under control, and as such, that was all she ever tried to use it for. It took an outsider like Wirt to come up with a fresh approach - after all, Wirt is pretty good at [[TakeAThirdOption thinking up alternative solutions to problems]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 41 (click to see context) from:
* At the end of "Mad Love", Greg foolishly tossed the two coins into the fountain. Why couldn't Wirt just ''swim to the bottom of said fountain'' to retrieve the coins instead of having him, Greg and Beatrice be stowaways?
to:
* At the end of "Mad Love", Greg foolishly tossed the two coins into the fountain. Why couldn't Wirt just ''swim to the bottom of said fountain'' to retrieve the coins instead of having him, Greg and Beatrice be stowaways?stowaways?
** Wirt would probably consider that stealing, given how resistant he was to taking money from Endicott at all, and so wouldn't want to do it. Then, because Beatrice was already having doubts about delivering Greg and Wirt to Adelaide at that point, she would probably have decided not to get the coins in the hopes that it would deter Wirt from going forward with the plan.
** Wirt would probably consider that stealing, given how resistant he was to taking money from Endicott at all, and so wouldn't want to do it. Then, because Beatrice was already having doubts about delivering Greg and Wirt to Adelaide at that point, she would probably have decided not to get the coins in the hopes that it would deter Wirt from going forward with the plan.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** It could be foreshadowing [[spoiler:that Wirt and Greg are actually drowning in a river]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** It almost certainly refers to the image of the moon moving across the lake when you can see it's reflection in the water.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 38 (click to see context) from:
* Regarding the song "Over the Garden Wall", how can "the moon ride the waves to the shore" when "the lake is a mirror"? Is this a deliberate Wonderland lapse of logic?
to:
* Regarding the song "Over the Garden Wall", how can "the moon ride the waves to the shore" when "the lake is a mirror"? Is this a deliberate Wonderland lapse of logic?logic?
* At the end of "Mad Love", Greg foolishly tossed the two coins into the fountain. Why couldn't Wirt just ''swim to the bottom of said fountain'' to retrieve the coins instead of having him, Greg and Beatrice be stowaways?
* At the end of "Mad Love", Greg foolishly tossed the two coins into the fountain. Why couldn't Wirt just ''swim to the bottom of said fountain'' to retrieve the coins instead of having him, Greg and Beatrice be stowaways?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 36 (click to see context) from:
** Perhaps she's one of those magical creatures so dangerous, she can only be referred to by euphemism (such as calling fairies "the Fair Folk" or "the Good Neighbors" to avoid attracting their attention/anger).
to:
** Perhaps she's one of those magical creatures so dangerous, she can only be referred to by euphemism (such as calling fairies "the Fair Folk" or "the Good Neighbors" to avoid attracting their attention/anger).attention/anger).
** It does sound a little like Beatrice just made up the title for her.
* Regarding the song "Over the Garden Wall", how can "the moon ride the waves to the shore" when "the lake is a mirror"? Is this a deliberate Wonderland lapse of logic?
** It does sound a little like Beatrice just made up the title for her.
* Regarding the song "Over the Garden Wall", how can "the moon ride the waves to the shore" when "the lake is a mirror"? Is this a deliberate Wonderland lapse of logic?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 16 (click to see context) from:
** She probably has that kind of strength thanks to being a magical talking bluebird.
to:
** She probably has that kind of strength thanks to being a magical talking bluebird. That, or she kept the strength she had [[spoiler: as a human]]
