Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-1916997-20151225192609/@comment-26159109-20151225211740

Eskaver wrote: CoolDudeAl wrote: Farerb wrote: I just don't get why is it so hard for people to understand that you can like something and acknowledge its flaws. Just because I don't go around and give praise for every lazy thing they've done doesn't mean I don't like it. When the show is good, it's really good and when it's bad, it's really bad, which makes me understand why people can feel frustrated with it sometimes. I am mostly angry because I can see all the potential they have. A&E are not bad writers, they did give us S1 and a lot of original adaptations of stories we used to know (like Peter Pan - what they did was something that was original and wasn't done before), so I get really angry when they become lazy, when plot doesn't make sense or when characters are just there as instruments ti move the plot along even if it means compromising their development. If I didn't like it then I wouldnt be so passionate about it. Sorry that I don't want to shut my brains off when I want to be entertained or that I have high standards as to what I what I watch, listen or read or that I don't buy the distractions that the show gives its audience to deflect their attention to what it does badly. There is a big difference between acknowledging flaws, and taking shots at the show every chance you get. There within the problem lies. And nothing will ever be 100% perfect to 100% of those that watch, read, listen, etc. to it. What you find as a flaw, I may find as an asset, and vice versa. And that's what makes us unique and that's why we have forums to share our differences and discuss and discover our similarities.

CoolDude, not on a personal note, but you can't argue away someone's thoughts, perspective and opinion. We all have different views even amongst ourselves internally. For example, I despise the Frozen inclusion, but the story was great, etc. Was it right to put Frozen in? No, not at all in my opnion, but I do see that it was right to do as a business move. Did it mess up or disturb the show in uncomfortable ways? Yes. But we all have different answers to these questions and we all have different questions that we pose. When I watched the commentery gor the pilot, they said that they didn't want Storybrooke to feel like it was 2011 or the 80's because they wanted it to feel that it was timeless, which I really appreciated back then. When they decided to insert Frozen, it frustrated me because even if it is unlikely, what if people were not into Frozen in a few years, so coming back to watch this show would feel really weird. The show was supposed to be an interpertation of traditional fairytales with few Disney reference here and there, which was nice.

When "A Tale of Two Sisters" aired I was hopeful because beside the Frozen storyline, which was build up nicely in that episode, we got two different plot threads that had nothing to do with Frozen:

1. Regina's search for the Author, that was... well you know what I think about 4B.

2. The mysterious hat, which would eventualy lead to the Sorcerer, which would eventualy lead to nothing.

However, Frozen had a bad effect on the show that they weren't able to recover:

1. Using two much Disney icons like Merida (and even Cruella and Maleficent that weren't dressed in "fairytale couture" but in a Disney halloween costumes for 40 year olds women).

2. Having way too much characters in too short seasons (9-11 episodes) like QoD, Isaac, August and Lily in 4B and Merida and Camelot in 5A. With Frozen there wasn't so much problem with that because besides Ingrid, we already know the characters, unlike 4B and 5A's characters that needed more time to be developed so we would feel something for them.