Board Thread:Wiki-Related Discussion/@comment-1916997-20160712145426/@comment-5679696-20160713211039

Esk, I really want to see your point, but I still don't get it. I don't understand where you draw the line. Like, why is Ursula enough of an adaptation of the Little Mermaid, but Phillip isn't of the Beast? We both agree with Briar Rose and Aurora... But how is Daniel not an adaptation of the Creature? To me, there is no distinction here. I think, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that the alleged lack of representation is just another plot twist of the show's. Like, the original Frankenstein story is twisted so Frankenstein didn't resurrect one, but two men. Who are we to say that the first one is more of an adaptation that the second? We can argue about this all day long, "Gerhardt is closer to Victor... It fits more in the original story... It happened first..." And that will never change the fact that Daniel is still "a man resurrected by Dr. Frankenstein, with enhanced strength, violence, and pain." He even hides in a barn like the original creature! How is that not an adaptation of the Creature? Since when can't they adapt a character into more than one. For the sake of reusing the Jack example, I'm sure OUaT featured a lot more Giants than the original story. Why can't it have two Frankenstein creatures? Or over 7 Genies of Agrabah? Or two Snow Queens? Or, to stay on topic, two separate characters to adapt different elements from the Beast?

PS: I don't think I'm the only one who does not want Aladdin for the very fact that his story was already adapted x)