Board Thread:Wiki-Related Discussion/@comment-34924658-20170919184815/@comment-2153169-20170920024217

Eskaver wrote: DatNuttyKid wrote: OUAT: The Darkness wrote: Why are we even debating this? If the writers didn't "establish a correspondence" between Clordinda and Tisbe nor did they "think of them in that way," we should remove it from the intro and just put the comparisons in the trivia. That just makes sense. This.

Both pages should read that they are based on "one of the wicked stepsisters from Cinderella". This as well. Appearance doesn't connected much at all and the plot is pretty generic. Don't understand the push that they are based on the Disney ones, when they weren't.

So, you're saying we should ignore the entire storyline of the character just because you think it is a generic plot? Yet, we consider Leopold as an allusion to Aladdin because he found and used a magic lamp?

Generic or not, the plot is the plot. And, even if she was not created for that purpose, the plot similarities between Clorinda and Anastasia are real. As I said, we are saying that some elements are references/allusions to other for a waaaaaay less than that.

Sorry but nah. We have to be logical on this one. If some characters are considered as allusions to other because of their storylines (generic or not), then Clorinda absolutely deserves to fall into that category. If you guys want to ignore Tisbe, fine. We can always argue she is just an evil stepsister.

But, we really can't ignore Clorinda/Anastasia case. Again, her entire storyline is basically a rip off of Disney's Anastasia. The fact that it comes from a sequel do not matter, that's still the Disney character. And that would not be the first time that some of their stories are based on the sequels (cf Ursula and The Little Mermaid 3)