Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-5154975-20140830155800/@comment-1916997-20150107223422

WinterWoodsGal wrote:

CoolDudeAl wrote:

WinterWoodsGal wrote:

Puggles52 wrote:

CoolDudeAl wrote: Andrew.scott.503 wrote:

Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote:

CoolDudeAl wrote: DZAV21 wrote: Hmcooper4 wrote: DZAV21 wrote: They should bring the couple from Ladyhawk, or at least the curse... Love that movie! Agreed, though it's been a while since I've seen that one.

Also, while they may not necessarily be able to bring in Shrek (nor should they), they could still use the Curse that was cast on Fiona as part of a plot line. Someone that is a beautiful princess by day and a monster at night could work rather well if done correctly.

Something that would make me stop watching OUAT is if they brought the characters from that ungodly piece of filth Dreamworks cooked up to make the children think its ok to act vile and disgusting.

But yes is love to see the Always Together Eternally Apart curse come into play somehow. One a bird by day the other a wolf by night. Maybe have Rumple be who cursed them. Epic! Shrek is actually based on a picture book, believe it or not, so Dreamworks can't take all the blame. lol For proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrek! I would love it if Once ended up adapting the original book, then. It would be such a shady move and it would cause scandals and drama and shady interviews! I'm so here for this! There's no better promotion than a feud. From the wiki link given above:

The rights to the books were originally bought by Steven Spielberg in 1991, before the founding of DreamWorks, when he thought about making a traditionally animated film based on the book.

So I don't think OUAT will even be able to use the Shrek book version either.

Ladyhawke (1985) would be a great story for OUAT, however, it is a Fox/Time Warner production so I think it would be unlikely that ABC/Disney would be able to get the rights. I'm not holding my breath for anything written after 1960, unless Disney already has rights for it. you mean like frozen, the 2014 adaptation which was brought in? cause I think 2014 comes after 1960 :P Read the bold. Thanks Winter, lol. I'd also point out that Frozen is an adaptation (although loose) of The Snow Queen, and that was published in the 1800's. So far, 101 Dalmations is the latest source material we've seen used, being published in 1956. You're welcome. Yeah, so I'm pretty sure (haven't checked) that that puts Charlie and the Chocolate Factory out, but I don't want Once to mess it round anyway. The book is 1964, so they could probably get rights if they really wanted to. However, a movie was just made in 2005 that closely follows the book, so it would be hard to adapt without clearing those rights as well. Unless they made it look completely different, and how can a magical chocolate factory look that different? lol. Anyway, I'm not sure if I'd want it adapted into Once or not, I think it would either be hit or miss.