comScore
  1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Maude
  8. The Braiser

What's with the name?

Allow us to explain.

We Can Be Heroes

Alice Swashbuckles, Sets Off to Rescue Her Lost Love In Excellent Once Upon a Time In Wonderland Trailer [VIDEO]


video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

I have to admit, I haven’t been expecting much from Once Upon a Time spinoff Once Upon a Time In Wonderland, because I haven’t liked OUaT that much lately and Once Upon a Time In Wonderland is a really bad title. But this is one book I shouldn’t have judged by its cover, because the trailer looks great. Like, insanely great (pardon the pun… you’ll see). I’m-sorry-for-the-bad-things-I-said-about-your-title-and-(some-of)-the-bad-things-I-said-about-your-parent-show great.

(via: Deadline)

Are you following The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

TAGS:


  • http://twitter.com/lekass Lauren

    Okay, I’m with you. That looks seriously awesome and I hadn’t expected much considering how OUAT has been going.

  • Miss Cephalopod

    I’ve never even watched the original series and don’t really intend to, but this looks great. Added to my ever-growing list of Stuff I Have To Watch.

  • Anonymous

    I’ve enjoyed Once Upon a Time, mostly for the mix of cheese and silly overwrought drama. (seriously, most of the plot twists are comedy gold. “Now the prince thinks he has to protect his woman by nobly walking away from her, but she chases after him! Now she thinks she has to protect him by nobly walking away, but he chases after! Now both of them walk nobly away! Now they both chase! Okay, that’s it for this week; next week we’ll do it again, but backwards!”
    So I’m down for this.

  • http://wrongsirwrong.blogspot.com/ Magic Xylophone

    Ugh. Sorry Rebecca, I’m not feeling this at all. Two minutes of the star-crossed lovers repeating each other’s lines, and I’m already sick of their romance. Add in the same cockamamy premise of making an absurdist satire all dour and portentous that made the Burton film such a chore, plus some serious mid-nineties-screensaver background graphics, and you can count me out.

  • http://www.commonplacebook.com electrasteph

    Alice in Wonderland is one of the classic few adventure stories for girls. I’m not thrilled that they’re turning it into a romance, and making Alice older than she was in both the books and in the Once Upon a Time series. She’s supposed to be a little girl – not sexy, not sexualized. It’s bad enough that our culture has tried to sexualize Alice and imply something about Lewis Carroll’s writing for little girls. Television should not be playing into it in the year 2013. Let little girls be little girls, and let them have adventures without turing a purient adult gaze at stories about them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/noga.gordon.12 Noga Gordon

    Yep.

  • Adam R. Charpentier

    Since Once Upon a Time has been my “watch while doing chores” show, I’m with the rest…expected the trailer to suck and feeling the whiplash of it going the other way. Looking forward to this!

  • Adam R. Charpentier

    A television show about a little girl’s adventures in a whimsical fairyland wouldn’t last. A show about an older, adventurous woman fighting her way through a more dangerous variant might last a little longer. I agree that they sexed up the Queen of Hearts unnecessarily, but they aren’t the first to do so, so I wouldn’t give them the credit.

    I’m disappointed that America McGee’s Alice never made it to film…

  • Adam R. Charpentier

    It does not surpass Harley’s lingerie outfit. She’s dressed like a Vegas showgirl, yes, but that’s not nearly as bad.

  • Adam R. Charpentier

    Ugh, yes, the “plots”. I’m enjoying it, too, mostly to find out who else Rumpelstiltskin is or who else another character might be. The amalgams are fun. I’ve just reached the Frankenstein reveal and that was hilarious.

  • Rebecca Pahle

    It’s my “watch while I knit” show, but I might have to put the needles down for this one!

  • http://twitter.com/LJonte LJonté

    I was torn about the original series and now I’m torn about this. I really loathe most of the fantasy depictions of the female characters. I am so sick of the, female-villain-as-tart trope. It’s not enough to make her evil, she has to be made up like a 70s cocktail waitress and falling out of her too-tight bustier.

    I can live with an older Alice, and with a romance sub-plot, just so long as her search forTwu Wuv is not how she is defined as a character.

  • Anonymous

    “Now both of them walk nobly away! Now they both chase!”

    Thank you for giving me the mental image of Snow and Charming walking away from each other, then simultaneously pivoting and running back towards each other only to run around and around and around in a circle.

  • http://www.commonplacebook.com electrasteph

    Why wouldn’t it last? I don’t agree with that notion – I wonder why you think so.

  • Danielle Chaves

    No, thank you.

    I have watched maybe .5% of Once Upon a Time and it was embarrassing. Not only were the female villains frivolous, but they were unnecessarily overly sexualized. As though being sexy and evil are synonymous. And it looks as though its offspring hasn’t fallen far from the tree, in that respect. Other than that, this sort of “Look what we’re doing, we’re so clever!” vibe that a lot of these fantasy shows are emulating is not only annoying but boring. Conceptually there is nothing new or interesting about this.

  • http://wrongsirwrong.blogspot.com/ Magic Xylophone
  • Anonymous

    UGH part of me hates this and part of me really wants to like it. I gotta say almost everything about this is poorly done cheese. What is up with those backgrounds and those costumes??

  • http://twitter.com/HoneyvonBuren BatiHoney

    Not many OUAT hardcore fans around, huh? Well, I personally loved the trailer to pieces. I love OUAT, I admit it had been a little bumpy lately, but I have still loved it nonetheless. I watch a looot of TV shows, and OUAT has been definitely my favorite. However, I too didn’t know what to expect from this spin-off, but after the trailer, I want it and I want it soon. The possibilities are endless!! I sense they will tell the present story while going back to what happened with Alice and Cyrus with flashbacks. They also mention Alice and Cyrus traveling between worlds, I believe, and that has me believing we might finally see Ariel, for example, or since Cyrus is a genie, maybe something about Agrabah and its characters. Surely it is convenient since they cannot include all their ideas in OUAT.

    Sure, Alice is not a little girl here, and they added Cyrus, which adds romance to the mix… which I don’t mind. I don’t mind romance as long as they show me the characters falling in love and sharing and all that it is required for me to believe they are really in love (which is why I want to watch it first to settle for an opinion on the pairing. Although so far, Alice’s acting has me convinced of her feelings, at least… but I am rooting for Hatter/Alice). I mostly think of OUAT as an adventure through fairytales, and I look forward to the twists they are going to make. It is the creators’ take on those stories, and I have liked their creative choices so far. OUAT and OUAT in Wonderland is absolutely and completely CHEESY, but I love it like that. I feel like it works with what they’ve created. Just my personal opinion.

    Also, I wasn’t expecting much of the CGI (It has always looked pretty fake but they are on a budget, so I understand) but I think they put more effort into the White Rabbit! I like him. I am excited about the idea of purely CGI character!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Elizabeth-Freeman/100001913828977 Elizabeth Freeman

    I’m not fan of Once upon a time, but this gives me mixed feelings. Alice doesn’t need a love interest. Why not just have Wonderland be in endanger and have her go save it. But it looks interesting.

  • http://twitter.com/EleniRPG Eleni

    I agree this looks better than anticipated. Maybe it’s the “Heart of Courage” soundtrack. Gets me every time.

  • http://technicalluddite.com/ Hannele Kormano

    Awww, this gives me Neil Gaiman Stardust feels….

  • Life Lessons

    Oh I am so watching this.

  • Anonymous

    I still really like OUAT for the most part but I’ve never had any particular affection towards Alice in Wonderland so this might be a miss for me. Now if they had a spin off set in the B&W horror world they’ve shown, that would be cool.

    (Mostly irrelevant OUAT rant ahead)
    OUAT is one of those shows that really tests how good a person you are. All you have to do is measure the time it takes you to think ‘Can someone just shoot Regina now?’

    “Everybody just sees me as the evil queen”
    Whose fault is this? You’ve… you’ve literally tried to kill everyone in town. Probably five times over. Your last plan was ‘If my son won’t love me, I’ll kill everyone he cares about so that he’ll have no choice’. THAT WAS THREE EPISODES AGO! ARGH!

  • Anonymous

    Red Queens hot shorts made my eyes roll SO hard! With all due respect to the fans of OUaT, this spin off looks as just ridiculously silly, hokey and unwatchable. And, I still think the title is stupid…

  • janna roam

    Great trailer; Once Upon a Time in Wonderland looks like an amazing new show, especially since they’ve switched things up so Alice is going to Wonderland for the second time. Unfortunately I won’t be able to check out the show right away because I work evenings at DISH, but I’ll record it. I set my DISH Hopper to always record ABC’s primetime shows, which will include Once Upon a Time in Wonderland, so I’ll be able to see how the show turns out even if I forget to set a timer.

  • Adam R. Charpentier

    Because I can see as well as you can what primetime TV is composed of, and “Friendship is Magic” doesn’t (usually) fly.

  • Adam R. Charpentier

    But we’ve seen that look already. Nowadays, it’s almost as much a stereotype as “sexy Queen of Hearts”.

  • http://www.commonplacebook.com electrasteph

    a) what you are describing in both your comments is quite different than what I outlined in my original comment. Trying to change the parameters of what I said doesn’t make your argument valid.

    b) So we have to accept the status quo of current prime time TV? Especially when women are coming out of the woodwork all over the place and saying “I want to see different kinds of stories for girls and women on TV”? I’m telling you, there is a market for the story I described, for different stories for girls and women. I know there is because I want to see them, and women all over the place want to see them. That’s pretty much why this site exists, in fact.

    Men dominate all of the story telling done in Hollywood for television. When 83% of all creators are men, they are only telling stories that half the viewing audience wants to see and relates to. When 51% of the creators are women, we’ll see a more diverse (and more satisfied) viewing audience.

  • Adam R. Charpentier

    You’re derailing this thread to talk about gender bias, so I’ll go ahead and stick to the original topic of conversation as much as possible.

    “So we have to accept the status quo…” – Good point. Not necessarily. However, based on the current lineup, programming with more adult themes, sophisticated storylines, and complicated plots seem to win over childrens’ adventures. That and “reality” television about idiots.

    “…there is a market for the story I described, for different stories for girls and women.” – you described Alice in Wonderland per the original synopsis, which (unless otherwise translated through Lit. theory) is a childrens’ story. And that’s fine and I agree that there is a market for it, on childrens’ television stations (Sprout or Disney, maybe) but even Cartoon Network takes a more mature turn with their programming and always has. If you’re talking about how well this program would do on ABC, I couldn’t say, though I can say with all confidence that it wouldn’t get much airtime. They used to do infrequent Saturday/Sunday night movies and I remember that they aired a very by-the-book Alice in Wonderland movie and that worked, but when they program weekly television programming, they’re catering to families, adults, teenagers, and children, of both sexes, they don’t just discriminate. They pump out what they do to appeal to the masses.

    “That’s pretty much why this site exists” – To promote a close-to-the-book adaptation of Alice in Wonderland? I’d like to see a poll.

    “83%…” – I checked and couldn’t find your source for this.

    “When 51 of…” – That’s assuming quite a lot. That’s assuming that having majority representation of one gender would create a more diverse (and more satisfied) viewing audience. I’d wager that the viewing audience will never be satisfied, that networks will continue to squeeze out turds, and that most of the people that sign off on this and that show care more about making money than they do about your viewing tastes. But, sure, maybe. Anything is possible.

  • Adam R. Charpentier

    They do a wonderful job of making her sympathetic sometimes…Rumpel too…and then after the scenes pass, I remember all of the mayhem they’ve created and I can’t help but wonder how they’re still alive.

  • Anonymous

    “But wait, there’s more!” Holy Product Placement, Batman.

  • http://www.commonplacebook.com electrasteph

    Not sure how I can derail this thread, given that I started it and that gender bias and portals of women and girls in the media was the subject matter of my original post.

    Alice in Wonderland is a children’s story and one of the few pure adventure stories for girls, other than Pippi Longstocking. There should be a place for those kinds of stories on television, because women and girls want to see them. Whether it’s on ABC or when it airs isn’t of much concern to me, as long as those stories start being told.

    “That’s pretty much why this site exists” – as a place to discuss portrayals of women and girls in media, yes. That is actually a stated goal of the site’s owners if I’m not mistaken.

    “83%” – you must not be looking very hard for that stat, because there are dozens of articles on it. Here’s one:

    http://blogs.indiewire.com/womenandhollywood/women_lose_ground_as_tv_writers

    And an organization that specifically studies this stuff:

    http://womenintvfilm.sdsu.edu/research.html

    “When 51% of” I don’t see anything wrong with that assumption, given that 51% of the population is female. 51% of the market actually should belong to us, as should 51% of the jobs as creators.

    Also, not TV, but related: Where have all the women gone in movies? – http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-women-film-20130513,0,2661695.story

  • Adam R. Charpentier

    “that gender bias and portals of women and girls in the

    media was the subject matter of my original post.” Broadly, but I was obviously only talking about Alice in Wonderland. I don’t intend to bicker with you about the whole of our society.

    Likewise, “Whether it’s on ABC” is the only subject I was talking about. This particular variant on the storyline was the only one I was concerned with. Again, I agree that it has a place, I just don’t see it happening on ABC. Since you don’t care, I guess there’s no point in following that thread.

    “as a place to discuss portals of women and girls in media, yes.” Yes, it is. But you’re misquoting me. I said, “To promote a close-to-the-book adaptation of Alice in Wonderland? I’d like to see a poll.” Since I am only talking about Alice in Wonderland, again, we seem to be at an impasse since, yes, I know why this site exists.

    “you must not be looking very hard for that stat” That very link you sent indicates the percentage as 84%, so a Google search wouldn’t have found it since you previously said it was 83%. It does when I type in 84%. So, given the proper resources and inclination, I have found it.

    “I don’t see anything wrong with that” Since you enjoy statistics, why not poll the population of the planet and see what percentage of people are interested in working in film & television or the percentage that have the appropriate background? And when you get the statistics that says, yes, 51% of the population is interested versus the other 49% (which, again, are all interested, right? Because to reach 100% of people interested in working in film and television, everyone needs to be interested) then I’ll agree. Of course, I’d rather judge each individual by their own merit and skill but I’m not in charge of anyone unfortunately, so you can do what you like as far as I’m concerned. Of course, you’ll have to deal with whatever percentage of men and women that work in film that will continue to promote stories that you don’t agree are perfect representations of the world as you’d like it to be in. I’m not sure what you’ll do about them. But then again, 100% of the population of the planet, regardless of interest, are not involved with the creation of this particular version of Alice in Wonderland. Which is all I was talking about. Since it was in response to your Alice in Wonderland statement on an Alice in Wonderland page. And that’s why I suggested that you were sort of derailing the conversation. Since I was talking about what you were talking about but what you REALLY wanted to talk about is something else. So, we wouldn’t be talking if you had been up front about it.

  • http://www.commonplacebook.com electrasteph

    The derail happened in YOUR post, dude. Go back and read my original comment here. I’m talking about:

    1) the lack of availability of adventure stories for girls (very scarce)

    2) media’s tendency to take stories for little girls and sexualize them (common)

    3) how media needs to stop hijacking adventure stories for girls and making them purient, because women and girls need to see non-sexualized adventures stories of themselves onscreen

    4) how girls both want and need to see stories about themselves on screen.

    All this is predicated on the idea that people commenting in this blog are familiar with the research done on women in the media – the links I posted, and this research by the Geena Davis institute, which I KNOW has been posted on this blog several times. If you’re reading and commenting here, commenters can presume you’re probably familiar with this data.

    http://www.seejane.org/research/

    Key facts:
    Males outnumber females 3 to 1 in family films. In contrast, females comprise just over 50% of the population in the United States. Even more staggering is the fact that this ratio, as seen in family films, is the same as it was in 1946.

    Females are almost four times as likely as males to be shown in sexy attire. Further, females are nearly twice as likely as males to be shown with a diminutive waistline. Generally unrealistic figures are more likely to be seen on females than males.

    Females are also underrepresented behind the camera. Across 1,565 content creators, only 7% of directors, 13% of writers, and 20% of producers are female. This translates to 4.8 males working behind-the-scenes to every one female.

    From 2006 to 2009, not one female character was depicted in G-rated family films in the field of medical science, as a business leader, in law, or politics. In these films, 80.5% of all working characters are male and 19.5% are female, which is a contrast to real world statistics, where women comprise 50% of the workforce.

    Given all those stats, which you should be familiar with if you’re commenting here, I’m objecting to the way that Alice in Wonderland is being written.

  • Adam R. Charpentier

    None of that has anything to do with my opinion, that Alice in Wonderland, as a children’s television series, wouldn’t survive on primetime television. Whether there’s a lack of them, whether they’re being sexualized, whether stories are made prurient, regardless of all those things (or, perhaps, because of them), I don’t think it would survive. That was all I was saying. About Alice in Wonderland. The rest of this, your campaign for women’s rights, all of it, is not germane to my opinion that a freaking children’s show wouldn’t survive on network primetime TV. I agreed that it would probably find a home elsewhere. So, I’m not disagreeing with your objection. Object all you want, I don’t care. Object loud and object proud. But that has nothing to do with my comment, that such a show “wouldn’t last.” You asked me, “Why wouldn’t it last? I don’t agree with that notion – I wonder why you think so.” and I answered. And now you’re pulling statistics and being condescending and probably getting very annoyed with me and I’m sorry for that, but it still doesn’t change the fact that your question was answered and it has nothing to do with your objection. Seriously. What does your objection to this show’s existence have to do with whether or not I think a more traditional telling of Alice in Wonderland would survive? I didn’t write the fricking thing. If I did, it wouldn’t have a genie. The genie angle and the love story looks awful.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lisa.jensen.336717 Lisa Jensen

    Red Queen isn’t the Queen of Hearts. Queen of Hearts appeared in the first book, Red Queen is in the second book.

    However, I do agree that Harley’s costume change is much worse than this.

  • Adam R. Charpentier

    Ah! Okay, I didn’t know that. See, I was wondering why Regina was no longer the queen…but if they’re different people, then no reason to wonder.

  • http://melancholywise.tumblr.com/ Sophie

    Yeah, ‘Wonderland’ is set around a card game and ‘Through the Looking Glass’ around a chess game. I personally prefer ‘Through the Looking Glass’ both because the story has an actual goal (Alice must reach the other side of the board to become queen) and because it contains many of the more memorable characters, including tweedle dum and tweedle dee.

  • Adam R. Charpentier

    My excuse for forgetting that would have been that I haven’t read those books since I was little, but I’ve played the American McGee much more recently and so I don’t really have an excuse. I completely forgot! Thanks for the reminder.