FANDOM


  • So the character Amos Slade and his dog (Copper) are in Red's Untold Tale. This means that we should include The Fox and The Hound as a story covered by Once, yes?

      Preparing Editor Spell
    • I like it! Especially if Red gets another episode.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Oh, cool! Hadn't known that the book did stuff.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Yeah, there's alot of new characters in the book, I don't think any others are from stories, but I'm going to do google searches on all the names in the book after I finish reading it, just to make sure.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • CoolDudeAl wrote:
      Yeah, there's alot of new characters in the book, I don't think any others are from stories, but I'm going to do google searches on all the names in the book after I finish reading it, just to make sure.

      Oh, okay. I wasn't even thinking about buying the book.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • The book was not confirmed by A&E to be canon, so they should not be added until there's a confirmation.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Farerb wrote:
      The book was not confirmed by A&E to be canon, so they should not be added until there's a confirmation.

      Well, the author had mostly free reign, but she still had to clear what she was doing, which says to me it is canon enough. At any rate, Adam and Eddy probably approved her doing The Fox and The Hound stuff, because I'm sure if they had a plan for that story they wouldn't have allowed her to use it in her story. Just like they didn't allow her to give Red or Granny's real first names in the book. Basically, they didn't make the story, but they approved the story, which means it is technically in the canon.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • CoolDudeAl wrote:
      Farerb wrote:
      The book was not confirmed by A&E to be canon, so they should not be added until there's a confirmation.
      Well, the author had mostly free reign, but she still had to clear what she was doing, which says to me it is canon enough. At any rate, Adam and Eddy probably approved her doing The Fox and The Hound stuff, because I'm sure if they had a plan for that story they wouldn't have allowed her to use it in her story. Just like they didn't allow her to give Red or Granny's real first names in the book. Basically, they didn't make the story, but they approved the story, which means it is technically in the canon.

      Well, I think it's canon. They promote it and my using a fallacy, there is no proof that it isn't canon. They promote it and everything of Once upon a time in terms of novels have been canon (right?)

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • CoolDudeAl wrote:
      Farerb wrote:
      The book was not confirmed by A&E to be canon, so they should not be added until there's a confirmation.
      Well, the author had mostly free reign, but she still had to clear what she was doing, which says to me it is canon enough. At any rate, Adam and Eddy probably approved her doing The Fox and The Hound stuff, because I'm sure if they had a plan for that story they wouldn't have allowed her to use it in her story. Just like they didn't allow her to give Red or Granny's real first names in the book. Basically, they didn't make the story, but they approved the story, which means it is technically in the canon.

      It doesn't matter, the author is not the one to decide it. She might have gotten clearence from some producer, it doesn't change the fact that A&E have never stated that the book is canon. Moreover, when the comics were out, Adam immediately stated the the comics are canon. In this case, he didn't.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Eskaver wrote:
      CoolDudeAl wrote:
      Farerb wrote:
      The book was not confirmed by A&E to be canon, so they should not be added until there's a confirmation.
      Well, the author had mostly free reign, but she still had to clear what she was doing, which says to me it is canon enough. At any rate, Adam and Eddy probably approved her doing The Fox and The Hound stuff, because I'm sure if they had a plan for that story they wouldn't have allowed her to use it in her story. Just like they didn't allow her to give Red or Granny's real first names in the book. Basically, they didn't make the story, but they approved the story, which means it is technically in the canon.
      Well, I think it's canon. They promote it and my using a fallacy, there is no proof that it isn't canon. They promote it and everything of Once upon a time in terms of novels have been canon (right?)

      No, Reawakened, which was written by the same author, is not canon. It's not a matter of if they didn't say it's not canon, so it must be canon. This needs to confirmed by them.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Farerb wrote:
      CoolDudeAl wrote:
      Farerb wrote:
      The book was not confirmed by A&E to be canon, so they should not be added until there's a confirmation.
      Well, the author had mostly free reign, but she still had to clear what she was doing, which says to me it is canon enough. At any rate, Adam and Eddy probably approved her doing The Fox and The Hound stuff, because I'm sure if they had a plan for that story they wouldn't have allowed her to use it in her story. Just like they didn't allow her to give Red or Granny's real first names in the book. Basically, they didn't make the story, but they approved the story, which means it is technically in the canon.
      It doesn't matter, the author is not the one to decide it. She might have gotten clearence from some producer, it doesn't change the fact that A&E have never stated that the book is canon. Moreover, when the comics were out, Adam immediately stated the the comics are canon. In this case, he didn't.

      At the same time, she got permission from someone that she could do certain things, but not others. Who are the only people who can make such decisions? The writers.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Well, we can just ask then. That doesn't hurt.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • CoolDudeAl wrote:
      Farerb wrote:
      CoolDudeAl wrote:
      Farerb wrote:
      The book was not confirmed by A&E to be canon, so they should not be added until there's a confirmation.
      Well, the author had mostly free reign, but she still had to clear what she was doing, which says to me it is canon enough. At any rate, Adam and Eddy probably approved her doing The Fox and The Hound stuff, because I'm sure if they had a plan for that story they wouldn't have allowed her to use it in her story. Just like they didn't allow her to give Red or Granny's real first names in the book. Basically, they didn't make the story, but they approved the story, which means it is technically in the canon.
      It doesn't matter, the author is not the one to decide it. She might have gotten clearence from some producer, it doesn't change the fact that A&E have never stated that the book is canon. Moreover, when the comics were out, Adam immediately stated the the comics are canon. In this case, he didn't.
      At the same time, she got permission from someone that she could do certain things, but not others. Who are the only people who can make such decisions? The writers.

      Of course she got permission. She can't make money from someone else's idea without getting permission. I'm sure she got permission to write Reawakened as well - it didn't make that book canon and it doesn't make this book canon as well until A&E say so.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Farerb wrote:
      Eskaver wrote:
      CoolDudeAl wrote:
      Farerb wrote:
      The book was not confirmed by A&E to be canon, so they should not be added until there's a confirmation.
      Well, the author had mostly free reign, but she still had to clear what she was doing, which says to me it is canon enough. At any rate, Adam and Eddy probably approved her doing The Fox and The Hound stuff, because I'm sure if they had a plan for that story they wouldn't have allowed her to use it in her story. Just like they didn't allow her to give Red or Granny's real first names in the book. Basically, they didn't make the story, but they approved the story, which means it is technically in the canon.
      Well, I think it's canon. They promote it and my using a fallacy, there is no proof that it isn't canon. They promote it and everything of Once upon a time in terms of novels have been canon (right?)
      No, Reawakened, which was written by the same author, is not canon. It's not a matter of if they didn't say it's not canon, so it must be canon. This needs to confirmed by them.

      Two things: One, Reawakened is basically canon, because it is a retelling of the first season. The first season is canon, so the book technically is as well. Two, Reawakened was written by (I'm assuming a ghost writer under the name of) Odette Beane, who has no other book credits (or anything for that matter) to her name; where as Red's Untold Tale was written by someone named Wendy Toliver, who appears to be an actual person who has written other things (she even has her own site).

        Preparing Editor Spell
    •   Preparing Editor Spell
    • First of all, the canonicity of the book is not the topic of this thread. It is about The Fox and The Hound Characters in the book. Second, i'm sorry to tell you that Farerb, but your whole argument is wrong. The author of Red's Untold Tale did NOT write Reawakened. No need to make a whole point on something if it is not true.


      But, I think we're thinking about it the wrong way. I show this article to an admin, before adding it on the page and asking if we can use it as source. I'm not idiot. And yes, if I added it; it means I got a yes. So, to me, I think at this point we need a proof that it is not canon, because that's the point that you're trying to make. We have our source for canon, it was approved. So, I think if you want to make a point on what you're saying, well you should try to find another souce which correct the one we have. That's the difference: we're not trying to prove that it is canon, that's a discussion about the book possibly being not canon; that's the proof we should have.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Lady Junky wrote:
      First of all, the canonicity of the book is not the topic of this thread. It is about The Fox and The Hound Characters in the book. Second, i'm sorry to tell you that Farerb, but your whole argument is wrong. The author of Red's Untold Tale did NOT write Reawakened. No need to make a whole point on something if it is not true.


      But, I think we're thinking about it the wrong way. I show this article to an admin, before adding it on the page and asking if we can use it as source. I'm not idiot. And yes, if I added it; it means I got a yes. So, to me, I think at this point we need a proof that it is not canon, because that's the point that you're trying to make. We have our source for canon, it was approved. So, I think if you want to make a point on what you're saying, well you should try to find another souce which correct the one we have. That's the difference: we're not trying to prove that it is canon, that's a discussion about the book possibly being not canon; that's the proof we should have.

      I admit that I have mistaken about the author, but it still not matter. The source on the page just suggest that, but it does not say that. The word canon is not even in the article. If you think that's enough for the book to be considered canon, then I'm sorry, but you have no idea what canon is. Buffy and charmed have a lot of tie in books that are not considered canon. The only ones that can consider it canon are the show creators. You can't assume that something is canon just because the autor of the book says so (which even she hasn't said the book is canon btw). You say it's canon because Adam and Eddy didn't deny it- well that is not how it works.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Correct. This isn't about canonicity, so there shall be no more talk of such on this thread. Following this post all off-topic posts will be deleted.

      Anyhow, it's nice that they included other stories into that book, or rather cameos we probably wouldn't see.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • So if everyone (except Farerb) agrees the book is canon, The Fox and The Hound gets a story page, yes?

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • CoolDudeAl wrote:
      So if everyone (except Farerb) agrees the book is canon, The Fox and The Hound gets a story page, yes?

      Well, wouldn't that be like a wiki discussion then?

      Anyhow, it should because it was addressed in something of Once. Regardless of canonicity it was addressed in something related to Once via merchandise.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • CoolDudeAl wrote:
      So if everyone (except Farerb) agrees the book is canon, The Fox and The Hound gets a story page, yes?


      I don't think? First of all, it would not be a story page. The characters are from the Disney film, not the story, so it would be a film page. Then, we only do it when we have enough elements from the Disney film into the show/universe. In this case, that's just 2 characters :/

      However, they would have their place on the Disney references list.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Lady Junky wrote:
      CoolDudeAl wrote:
      So if everyone (except Farerb) agrees the book is canon, The Fox and The Hound gets a story page, yes?

      I don't think? First of all, it would not be a story page. The characters are from the Disney film, not the story, so it would be a film page. Then, we only do it when we have enough elements from the Disney film into the show/universe. In this case, that's just 2 characters :/

      However, they would have their place on the Disney references list.

      We've made story/film pages for less than two characters before. I thought it just has to clearly be refering to the story, which it clearly is. As far as the name, a dog named Copper is in both the book and movie, and Amos goes unnamed in the book (he's only called The Master), so it is a reference to both the book and movie in the same way Cruella and Pongo referenced both the book and movie.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • CoolDudeAl wrote:
      Lady Junky wrote:
      CoolDudeAl wrote:
      So if everyone (except Farerb) agrees the book is canon, The Fox and The Hound gets a story page, yes?

      I don't think? First of all, it would not be a story page. The characters are from the Disney film, not the story, so it would be a film page. Then, we only do it when we have enough elements from the Disney film into the show/universe. In this case, that's just 2 characters :/

      However, they would have their place on the Disney references list.

      We've made story/film pages for less than two characters before. I thought it just has to clearly be refering to the story, which it clearly is. As far as the name, a dog named Copper is in both the book and movie, and Amos goes unnamed in the book (he's only called The Master), so it is a reference to both the book and movie in the same way Cruella and Pongo referenced both the book and movie.


      Not the same thing. Cruella and Pongo are clearly named after two characters of the book. And Wendy said it herself to me: she based the characters on the Disney film, not the novel.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Lady Junky wrote:
      CoolDudeAl wrote:
      Lady Junky wrote:
      CoolDudeAl wrote:
      So if everyone (except Farerb) agrees the book is canon, The Fox and The Hound gets a story page, yes?

      I don't think? First of all, it would not be a story page. The characters are from the Disney film, not the story, so it would be a film page. Then, we only do it when we have enough elements from the Disney film into the show/universe. In this case, that's just 2 characters :/

      However, they would have their place on the Disney references list.

      We've made story/film pages for less than two characters before. I thought it just has to clearly be refering to the story, which it clearly is. As far as the name, a dog named Copper is in both the book and movie, and Amos goes unnamed in the book (he's only called The Master), so it is a reference to both the book and movie in the same way Cruella and Pongo referenced both the book and movie.

      Not the same thing. Cruella and Pongo are clearly named after two characters of the book. And Wendy said it herself to me: she based the characters on the Disney film, not the novel.

      Yeah, that wasn't the best example, someone like Ariel on the other hand, is very much based on the Disney version, yet we still consider her the book version little mermaid as well.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Because elements from the Little Mermaid (the book) are featured in the show. But look, Cinderella. We have the story page but no page for the Disney film, and it was decided that we will not create one for the Disney film since the only element we really have from the Disney film is the name of a mouse.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Lady Junky wrote:
      Because elements from the Little Mermaid (the book) are featured in the show. But look, Cinderella. We have the story page but no page for the Disney film, and it was decided that we will not create one for the Disney film since the only element we really have from the Disney film is the name of a mouse.

      It's a little different to have a story page and not a movie page, then having a movie page and not a story page though, for one simple reason: the story comes first and the movie is adapted off of it. Notice for every movie we have, we have it's corisponding story page (except for Brave which is an original movie script). So just by having Amos and Copper in her book, means she was indirectly inspired by the characters in The Fox and The Hound book, because they were the inspiration for the movie characters.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • As someone who hasn't read the book, I'm intrigued by the inclusion of Amos Slade and Copper. Unless their inclusion is directly linked to any major spoilers, could someone give me a brief description of their roles in the story?

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • The Chipped Cup wrote:
      As someone who hasn't read the book, I'm intrigued by the inclusion of Amos Slade and Copper. Unless their inclusion is directly linked to any major spoilers, could someone give me a brief description of their roles in the story?

      Amos is a hunter who lives with Copper in the same village as Red and Granny. Without giving too much away, something happens to Amos, and another character from the show gets Copper.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Made this page, for anyone who is interested, btw: http://onceuponatime.wikia.com/wiki/The_Fox_and_The_Hound

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • I think it's really cool that they're including more and different stuff, it makes the show feel very fresh.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • SPOILER ALERT... I am going to reveal plot points about The Fox and The Hound characters below, so if you don't want to be spoiled do not read below this.


      Amos is killed by a wolf (not Red as far as we can tell though), and his dog starts to follow Peter around, and Peter takes him in and names him Copper, after working with that metal in his father's shop. It is also alluded that Amos and Granny were lovers.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • CoolDudeAl wrote:

      It is also alluded that Amos and Granny were lovers.

      First of all, ew. Second of all, do we get any information on Granny's husband? The man who turned her and married her? I suspect I know why she's now a widow.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote:
      CoolDudeAl wrote:
      It is also alluded that Amos and Granny were lovers.
      First of all, ew. Second of all, do we get any information on Granny's husband? The man who turned her and married her? I suspect I know why she's now a widow.

      Haha, that "ew"! Granny's not one to sit still. I do wonder about her. Hopefully more Granny in the future.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote:
      CoolDudeAl wrote:
      It is also alluded that Amos and Granny were lovers.
      First of all, ew. Second of all, do we get any information on Granny's husband? The man who turned her and married her? I suspect I know why she's now a widow.

      They mention Granny's father, brothers, husband, daughter (Anita), and son in law (Red's father) a bit, but we don't actually get any new information about them. Oh, except that Anita got an enchanted cross pendant from Knubbin (the wizard that later gives Granny the enchanted cloak for Red), that helped her with her wolf discovery.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • CoolDudeAl wrote:
      Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote:
      CoolDudeAl wrote:
      It is also alluded that Amos and Granny were lovers.
      First of all, ew. Second of all, do we get any information on Granny's husband? The man who turned her and married her? I suspect I know why she's now a widow.
      They mention Granny's father, brothers, husband, daughter (Anita), and son in law (Red's father) a bit, but we don't actually get any new information about them. Oh, except that Anita got an enchanted cross pendant from Knubbin (the wizard that later gives Granny the enchanted cloak for Red), that helped her with her wolf discovery.

      Knubbin? I'm so sad that it wasn't Rumple like I've always thought. And that name sounds eerily familiar.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote:
      CoolDudeAl wrote:
      Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote:
      CoolDudeAl wrote:
      It is also alluded that Amos and Granny were lovers.
      First of all, ew. Second of all, do we get any information on Granny's husband? The man who turned her and married her? I suspect I know why she's now a widow.
      They mention Granny's father, brothers, husband, daughter (Anita), and son in law (Red's father) a bit, but we don't actually get any new information about them. Oh, except that Anita got an enchanted cross pendant from Knubbin (the wizard that later gives Granny the enchanted cloak for Red), that helped her with her wolf discovery.
      Knubbin? I'm so sad that it wasn't Rumple like I've always thought. And that name sounds eerily familiar.

      I was happy that it wasn't Rumple, he already has his hand in too much, lol. As far as the character, I think he's original, I can't find anything about him online. He was a good character, he even had a talking crow name Heathcliff.

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • CoolDudeAl wrote:
      Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote:
      CoolDudeAl wrote:
      Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote:
      CoolDudeAl wrote:
      It is also alluded that Amos and Granny were lovers.
      First of all, ew. Second of all, do we get any information on Granny's husband? The man who turned her and married her? I suspect I know why she's now a widow.
      They mention Granny's father, brothers, husband, daughter (Anita), and son in law (Red's father) a bit, but we don't actually get any new information about them. Oh, except that Anita got an enchanted cross pendant from Knubbin (the wizard that later gives Granny the enchanted cloak for Red), that helped her with her wolf discovery.
      Knubbin? I'm so sad that it wasn't Rumple like I've always thought. And that name sounds eerily familiar.
      I was happy that it wasn't Rumple, he already has his hand in too much, lol. As far as the character, I think he's original, I can't find anything about him online. He was a good character, he even had a talking crow name Heathcliff.


      Well, Knubbin was clearly a student of Rumple's, Rumple spun, while Knubbin knitted and the cloak was made.......(Kidding, sinceI haven't read the book)

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • Eskaver wrote:
      CoolDudeAl wrote:
      Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote:
      CoolDudeAl wrote:
      Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote:
      CoolDudeAl wrote:
      It is also alluded that Amos and Granny were lovers.
      First of all, ew. Second of all, do we get any information on Granny's husband? The man who turned her and married her? I suspect I know why she's now a widow.
      They mention Granny's father, brothers, husband, daughter (Anita), and son in law (Red's father) a bit, but we don't actually get any new information about them. Oh, except that Anita got an enchanted cross pendant from Knubbin (the wizard that later gives Granny the enchanted cloak for Red), that helped her with her wolf discovery.
      Knubbin? I'm so sad that it wasn't Rumple like I've always thought. And that name sounds eerily familiar.
      I was happy that it wasn't Rumple, he already has his hand in too much, lol. As far as the character, I think he's original, I can't find anything about him online. He was a good character, he even had a talking crow name Heathcliff.

      Well, Knubbin was clearly a student of Rumple's, Rumple spun, while Knubbin knitted and the cloak was made.......(Kidding, sinceI haven't read the book)

      If they ever make Knubbin canon on the show, I'm sure he will be a student of Rumple, because who isn't a student of Rumple. XD

        Preparing Editor Spell
    • A Spy in the Mirror
        Preparing Editor Spell
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.