Once Upon A Time

[Kzach]

I watched it last night on compy and was... underwhelmed. Rumplestiltskin was a Dwarf, so what was that shiny whatever supposed to be?

Two things:

1) Jiminy Cricket is both a grasshopper and two-inches tall and yet...

2) Robert Carlyle is only 5'8" so...

 

[Umbran]

Oh, that's a good one, but I think you know where the potential for fallacy lies in a reductive argument.

Yes. The existence of that potential just means one should not use it willy-nilly, on things that matter.

The risk involved with fallacy here is... nil. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nothing is lost or harmed if I have drifted into fallacy. Good heavens, I might be wrong about whether or not TV show premises can look smart! Oh, no!!!1!

I tend to think, honestly, that my outlook on this point is valuable, as it leaves me more open-minded. Since I think premises all sound dumb, I eliminate sounding bright as a criteria - I avoid pre-judging the show or introducing bias against it due to those couple of sentences. Dude to my view, I take a wait-and-see approach. Empirical evidence, and all that.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'll wait for it to end, and see what everyone says about it having some planning versus being made up by the writers as they go. If they don't have too many loose ends, I'll get it on DvD.

CJ - who is only now getting around to the 7th season of Monk.

 

[Umbran]

1) Jiminy Cricket is both a grasshopper and two-inches tall and yet...

I learned something new today - I'd thought that Jimny Cricket was a whole-cloth Disney fabrication, so I kind of sniffed at his inclusion in the program. It turns out that the Talking Cricket is a character in the book upon which the Disney movie was based, dating back to 1883. Go figure.

 

[Felon]

Yes. The existence of that potential just means one should not use it willy-nilly, on things that matter.

The risk involved with fallacy here is... nil. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nothing is lost or harmed if I have drifted into fallacy. Good heavens, I might be wrong about whether or not TV show premises can look smart! Oh, no!!!1!

Well, if you don't care about your position enough to avoid logical fallacies, then why advocate it? Why trouble someone by disputing them if you're not invested in being proven right? Fold your hand, concede the point, and let Kzach go on about how dumb the plot is unchallenged

I tend to think, honestly, that my outlook on this point is valuable, as it leaves me more open-minded. Since I think premises all sound dumb, I eliminate sounding bright as a criteria - I avoid pre-judging the show or introducing bias against it due to those couple of sentences. Dude to my view, I take a wait-and-see approach. Empirical evidence, and all that.

You allude to the tenets of skepticism, the most rational mode of thought two-legged creatures have devised. I cannot argue against it, but do expect full expect tolerance of it to be reciprocated (skeptics are generally slammed for being unremittingly negative, as Kzach was immediately after he posted). Certainly the show cannot be judged on the basis of one episode that hasn't even finished establishing all of its players.

 

[Thunderfoot]

I learned something new today - I'd thought that Jimny Cricket was a whole-cloth Disney fabrication, so I kind of sniffed at his inclusion in the program. It turns out that the Talking Cricket is a character in the book upon which the Disney movie was based, dating back to 1883. Go figure.

Disney is pretty well known for skipping whole parts of fables or re-working them to get that "happily ever after" feeling. Let's face it, "The Little Mermaid" is NOT a feel good story and doesn't end well for anyone involved. That being said, they do their research very well. They will include all sorts of glossed over parts in abridged versions and throw them right back in there.

But in the end, if it fits with the Disney image, then why not... and a talking cricket is right up Disney's alley!

 

[Felon]

Disney is pretty well known for skipping whole parts of fables or re-working them to get that "happily ever after" feeling.

What, you want a PG-13 version of The Little Mermaid?

Back when I read news of Willingham's Fables being adapted for ABC, I knew that if it ever happened it would be converted into a huge blob of schmaltz in short order. Maybe he got a nice consulting fee and a promise not to have his name placed in the credits.

 

[Umbran]

Back when I read news of Willingham's Fables being adapted for ABC

That was a different project that didn't go very far.

Once Upon a Time Writers Talk Fables Comparisons - TV News at IGN

 

[Thunderfoot]

What, you want a PG-13 version of The Little Mermaid?

Back when I read news of Willingham's Fables being adapted for ABC, I knew that if it ever happened it would be converted into a huge blob of schmaltz in short order. Maybe he got a nice consulting fee and a promise not to have his name placed in the credits.

Oh, no. I'm just saying that the original written versions rarely make it on screen in the Disney versions, which is fine. At least they don't "re-imagine" the genre like the latest "3 Musketeers" piece of tripe, but clean them up so as to be available to a wider audience. The dialog is child friendly, but the themes are great for growing minds. Never give up, believe in yourself, believe in your friends, its always darkest just before the dawn and whatnot.

 

[Felon]

And, most importantly, love conquers all.