I'd say that fairy tales nowadays are a sort of escapism. While they may have served as morality tales once, most modern tellings don't focus on the morals of The Three Billy Goats Gruff or Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs; they focus on appealing to the audience. This may be why Bluebeard, a less fantastical and more morally focused fairy tale, isn't as popular as the aforementioned ones. It doesn't help that it's violent, scary for children, and involves rather unappealing morals (Don't be curious and don't question your husband's wisdom).
As an example, the moral lesson behind Puss in Boots is completely nonsensical when taken with modern moral values. Lying and conniving gets you what you want? Yeah, good luck teaching that to kids. However, the story itself is intriguing for children; after all, what real life story has a talking cat serving as a negotiator and killing a shapeshifting ogre?
I've never watched the show Once Upon a Time, but I just wanted to comment on that aspect of the review.
Generally that is a good point; the problem is that this show is based on a collision of fairy tales with the modern world, and that fairy tales are/were in some ways real. This could have made for an intriguing show if they weren't committed to using the watered-down versions that their network's corporate owners produced in the last century. Imagine if the Greek gods popped up and instead of hewing to the myths they all acted as shown in Xena.
I won't argue about your view on the acting or writing. I for one think it is good and fun. I will argue over the alleged Disneyfication. Yes, they use the names of characters that were also used in the animated theatrical movies Disney made. First, do you know what the name Maleficent means? It means 'evil-doer', which is a pretty good name for such a character. As to why they didn't use the original fairy tale character's name? She didn't have a name. She was referred to only as the Wicked fairy godmother. So to help people connect to which story this evil being came from they used a name people have come to identify with the character.
In the same breath and motive, Jiminy in the original tale was just called The Talking Cricket. Now, as you appear to be an intelligent person based on your initial critique and response, how would it sound in a tv show if someone a character was only referred to as Mr. Talking Cricket? I will grant there is suspension of disbelief in both reading and watching a show, but it is far easier to use such a name as Talking Cricket in a book rather than a TV show.
As for being morality tales, well, then aren't they about hope on some level? If a morality play/tale is about the fight for a man's soul between the forces of good and evil, then the stories where a person wins out, where their soul is saved does give the readers hope that they to can find a way from evil and be good once more.
But I would add that just because a tale has a moral ideal it is promoting does not make it a morality play by necessity. A morality play has a strict definition to its meaning.
After only two episodes I agree that it's off to a bad start, but I would hesitate to say that it's "bad." Boring, maybe, but not outright bad.
It's a TV show, so I don't hold any expectations for the effects. All that matters are the props, sets and costumes and they've done a great job with that. So, beyond that, all I really care about are the characters and story. The story is definitely weak so far, but the characters are interesting & likable and the concept has promise.
I'll give the show a few more episodes before I personally decide whether it's worth continuing to watch.
I admit, the Disneyfication threw me off a bit at first, too. However, I've really enjoyed the first three episodes. They're cheesy, but in a kind of entertaining way.
As for staying true to the source material, the only way you can NOT stay true to the spirit of fairy tales is by trying too hard to stay true to them. Fairy tales change over time, and that's what makes them so great. They always change to fit the current culture. So maybe they did used to be morality tales. These days they're used more for escapism. By adapting them to modern day they ARE staying true to the spirit of the tales.
Erm the evil queen from snow white being OBSESSED with everyone's destruction is completely in character for her, given the tale...
She seems unrealistic because she is explicitly a fairy tale character
Leave a Comment:
After two episodes...it's bad.
The writing is generically awful ("I will destroy you if it is the last thing I do!"), and the acting is worse. Henry especially could not be more coached. What kid talks like that? The special effects are pretty lousy, with Conspicuous CGI trees taking the cake.
The setting is a small town in Maine. Of course it is. According to Hollywood, New England consists of metro Boston and picturesque seaside Maine vacation spots with dark secrets (I blame Stephen King).
What strikes me is how Disney everything is. I don't mean Disneyfication, but straight up using Disney names like Maleficent and Jiminy Crickett. Perhaps because of who owns ABC? And Snow White actually claims that fairy tales are meant to give hope and serve as escapism. Most folklorists would say that this is 100% wrong, that in their original(ish) forms, they were meant as warnings and morality tales, with real world applicability underneath the fantastic external forms. This kind of disrespect to the source material really undercuts the impression of making fairy tales Darker And Edgier again.