Who might be next onscreen?
May. 3rd, 2013 01:59 amAs I'm catching up (one ep left!), I'm noting with fascination all the characters they have fleshed out and introduced to us, and it makes me curious for more...
Namely, who will they give us next? And then whom?
Most of the characters are literary in origin, or are oral tales written down (the Mapinguari being an extreme example of that)
But some are far more than that. King George is, to Catholics, a saint. Mulan is, in some areas, a deity.
So it begs the question of where the one of the next figures will come. itjaritjari, who some hold shaped certain rivers and waterfalls? Paul Bunyan, perhaps? (I'm still surprised none of the Giants were named Paul)
Or perhaps the writers will try to keep more to the fables and folklore than to the grey areas where folklore overlaps with belief. And King Midas may be the last character we meet in OUAT who was both man and myth.
Though the addition of younger tales, such as Captain Hook, and the modern Prometheus - Frankenstein - makes me wonder if any other relatively-recently written characters will be introduced...John Watson, perhaps, or Candide, or Emma (from the book by the same name)
Will some of the future episodes show an attempt to land on the moon in FTL or one of the other realities? (fiction had been written on the subject since at least the 1600s)
No matter what, it promises to be interesting and enjoyable viewings.
Namely, who will they give us next? And then whom?
Most of the characters are literary in origin, or are oral tales written down (the Mapinguari being an extreme example of that)
But some are far more than that. King George is, to Catholics, a saint. Mulan is, in some areas, a deity.
So it begs the question of where the one of the next figures will come. itjaritjari, who some hold shaped certain rivers and waterfalls? Paul Bunyan, perhaps? (I'm still surprised none of the Giants were named Paul)
Or perhaps the writers will try to keep more to the fables and folklore than to the grey areas where folklore overlaps with belief. And King Midas may be the last character we meet in OUAT who was both man and myth.
Though the addition of younger tales, such as Captain Hook, and the modern Prometheus - Frankenstein - makes me wonder if any other relatively-recently written characters will be introduced...John Watson, perhaps, or Candide, or Emma (from the book by the same name)
Will some of the future episodes show an attempt to land on the moon in FTL or one of the other realities? (fiction had been written on the subject since at least the 1600s)
No matter what, it promises to be interesting and enjoyable viewings.
no subject
Date: 2013-05-03 11:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-03 02:55 pm (UTC)>I never made the connection between King George and Saint George
it took me a while too.
(it helped that, in some of the books my library has on folklore and legends etc, there are both chapters on fairies and on saints)
>the cynic in me says it was more coincidence than anything else
so...the OAUT King's name is "george" in much the same way that OUAT Frankenstein's name is "whale"? (someone ended up with the name, but there's no deeper signifigance)
that could be, too.
>Was Saint George a king? And King George didn't kill the dragon himself.
Saint George was a knight who rescued a princess and her kingdom from a dragon (which are probably like sleeping spells - more than one; though OUAT's George may have defeated someone who was called a dragon, like how Rumplestiltskin's nickname is The Crocodile)
>I think Frankenstein and King Midas are the exception, not the rule. But I'm a cynic.
any rule of thumb (to guide the pen) is useful.
even if they are the exception, they still have features in common with the others. (for a while, according to his legend, King Midas had donkey ears - just like Pinochio)
no subject
Date: 2013-05-03 04:18 pm (UTC)In a way, OUaT's King George did kill a dragon. He at least provided his "son" to "kill" King Midas's dragon. So it sort of fits. It just seems more coincidental to me, mainly because Saint George wasn't a bad guy. Though the show takes liberties with the traditional interpretation of characters, they haven't really made bad guys good or good guys bad, have they? Morally ambiguous at best.
I still don't understand what's up with the name "Whale." I was thinking "oh, please don't be Moby Dick."
no subject
Date: 2013-05-03 08:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-03 09:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-05 05:10 pm (UTC)Sparrow knows Blackbeard, who exists in Sparrow's world, in our world, and - given some of the written-down tales - possibly in one of the OUAT worlds.
(three Blackbeards...that's scary)
no subject
Date: 2013-05-05 05:00 pm (UTC)James Whale was the director of the original Frankenstein film.
no subject
Date: 2013-05-05 11:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-29 11:05 am (UTC)Anyway, a million years ago when I wrote my original response you your King George/Saint George theory, I had said I was unconvinced in part because the show had not made good guys into bad guys. Well, obviously, after watching the Peter Pan episodes, that's clearly not the case. So evidence to refute my skepticism! Yay!
no subject
Date: 2013-05-29 03:00 pm (UTC)I hope all is well with you.
I think there are (at least) three options here...
a) that wasn't Peter Pan - Peter's the kid's boss, and the kid knows not to let anything done in His {Peter's} name fail.
b) we're going to see a redemption arc, with the kid becoming a good guy worthy of what we think of as Peter Pan.
c) "Peter Pan" is a title, more occupation than name - like "Dark One."
no subject
Date: 2013-05-29 03:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-03 02:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-05 05:08 pm (UTC)i wonder if that's the direction they're going with Philip, or could've with Daniel. (though, does the Corpse need to be a stranger?)
no subject
Date: 2013-05-05 05:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-03 04:17 pm (UTC)I doubt we'd see anyone so literary as Candide (that's a little hardcore for family viewing and a reliance on basic familiarity with the story), but I wouldn't be surprised to see Kipling characters like Mowgli. Especially as we've now met Robin Hood. I'd also really like if they revisit more of Grimms' and Andersen's tales. But really, i'd just like them to do right by the characters they've introduced and then taken away - Cinderella, for example.
no subject
Date: 2013-05-03 04:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-05 05:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-05 05:07 pm (UTC)(if he gets a Storybrooke surname, it might be Pole or Poole - Verne originally was going to write Nemo as a Polish guy, but changed it in fear that it would stop Russians from buying his books. that's what I heard)
>giant squid.
yes!
(all manner of creatures - giant squid, angry whales, sky beasts (ever read 'horror of the heights' by Arthur Conan Doyle?))
no subject
Date: 2013-05-05 11:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-06 02:08 am (UTC)...unless part of Cthulhu's reputation was exactly that - a reputation or a moniker given (like how Rumplestiltskin is The Crocodile, or Napoleon was The Antichrist)
though that makes me wonder if Gregor Samsa was turned into a cockroach (along the lines of Archie?)...or if he wore a suit of armor which made him resemble one.