|
|
Post by Strangely on Dec 6, 2016 23:56:17 GMT -5
I'm not quite buying the "they just couldn't afford the effects to hide his face" excuse quite yet, as there are plenty of ways to achieve the same result without needing CGI. Indeed, in a show where human babies are created digitally there's no way that basic smoke effects aren't accessible or affordable, so whoever told you that is seriously misinformed. I'd say this likely falls into a creative decision or even a studio decision (Which is possible given the crackdown we've seen on smoking in children's entertainment in the last few years). Personally, I think it wasn't included because it just doesn't work that well in live action. Even when smoking in an enclosed room it would be unrealistic for a person's entire face to be obscured (cigar smoke isn't that thick, especially from one cigar). The simple reality is that in live action you're asking smoke, an everyday thing that everyone has seen, to behave in an unnatural manner. You can get away with this visual in a book (similar to how a baby can sword fight with teeth), but once you put this into a real world context it makes less sense. To recreate the book you'd basically have a sentient cloud of smoke that not only covers only the face but moves with the person. I can't say I'm disappointed by the lack of smoke, I'm not sure it adds that much anyway. Plus, in a show where Lemony Snicket is seen in broad daylight it seems almost silly to expect Sir to remain faceless. |
|
|
|
Post by Skelly Craig on Dec 7, 2016 0:01:33 GMT -5
It is the Netflix version of Sir, not the books', basically. There would have been ways to hide his face without CGI, but they would come with inevitable limitations elsewhere (camera positioning, blocking of actors); it was a creative decision made by the creators after carefully weighing the pro's and con's of either way, I'm sure, and I can understand that they went with the freedom gained by simply showing Sir's face.
I'm glad we don't have a bad-CGI cloud-head for Sir, as it would have been just distracting, and I'm glad we'll have Don Johnson's marvelous face to look at.
EDIT: wrote this before strangely posted, and good point on Snicket's face being visible too.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironic impostor on Dec 7, 2016 1:04:10 GMT -5
I can't say I'm disappointed by the lack of smoke, I'm not sure it adds that much anyway. Plus, in a show where Lemony Snicket is seen in broad daylight it seems almost silly to expect Sir to remain faceless. Yeah, I can't say I'm really that disappointed either. I was merely trying to see if a theory I had (that the show could have been toying with us slightly, which has been known to happen with ASoUE on occasion) held any water. Pretty clearly it didn't. But still, I thought the discussion would interesting. I agree with most everything you said, especially the part about cracking down on the portrayal of smoking in entertainment. The decision to not obscure Sir's face, I agree, likely was a creative one or, in a slightly less fortunate scenario, a studio one. Also, as far as Lemony goes, you bring up something I've been thinking about for a while. Within the show, will Lemony know he's fictional? The only reason I ask this is because, based on what we've seen and how it appears his narration and character will be integrated into the narrative, it almost seems like he'll have to be aware of that fact as he clearly knows he's talking to a camera, or, if not necessarily a camera, at least an audience (though his own admission that he's on Netflix and viewers would be better off streaming something else does seem to indicate that he knows of the camera's existence). This only concerns me slightly because the fashion in which the books break the fourth wall is in a way that doesn't necessarily require Lemony to admit he's fictional, and the books often go out of their way to reinforce that he's doing the exact opposite. He tells you to stop reading because the events, he insists, are true, and how anyone could bear to read about them with that knowledge in mind is, by his own admittance, baffling to him. Personally, the way I could see them getting around this is by admitting that this is a dramatized, filmed version of the events in the same way the books acknowledge that, obviously, they are investigations into and written recordings of the events, but clearly not the events themselves (I know, duh, basically I'm just explaining how books work, which I am well aware nobody here needs explained to them, sorry). This would leave room for Lemony to address the camera while also acknowledging that the "real" Lemony and Baudelaires are not involved in this production and that, technically, while these episodes are "recreations" of them that may or may not have some details changed or altered, the events contained within them actually happened. Essentially, the show would be telling us that we're watching the world's most expensive episodes of one of those "crime re-enactment" shows. If they go this route, or something vaguely akin to it, I'd personally be happier than if they just decide to give Lemony, as an in-universe character, the knowledge that he, and by extension the world he inhabits, is fictional. One of my favorite things about ASoUE is how it manages to be meta without necessarily getting too far into the whole "world on the head of a pin that's aware of its status as a world on the head of a pin" thing. With all that being said though, if they do decide to just make Lemony a truly all-seeing, hand of God character, I can't say I wouldn't be interested in seeing that slight variation on the way the series' meta aspects work. No matter what ends up being the case, I'm insanely excited for the show and can't wait to see what creative decisions they make. |
|
|
|
Post by Skelly Craig on Dec 7, 2016 1:25:34 GMT -5
It's possible that there will be some throw-away joke made by Burton's Lemony not being the real Lemony (which fans might or might not take too seriously in their reading of the whole TV series). But I cannot imagine that they'll make it a constant thing, acknowledging that "none of this is real, not even Lemony," considering that the series is explicitly called "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events."
By having LS appear in the middle of the action as the narrator, it is basically already implied that it is not a documentary or the "actual events," whatever that means, but a re-enactment. Just like in the books, and just like in the very first teaser trailer we got from Netflix. So I think it's likely we'll get moments where Lemony will acknowledge that investigations are not clear on this or that part of the story, or acknowledge his unreliableness as narrator, but I do think that Burton will stay in character as LS throughout the show in order not to ruin the audience's immersion in the story he is narrating.
|
|
|
|
Post by trip on Dec 7, 2016 2:10:13 GMT -5
I can't believe we're all being roped into watching an eight-episode True Crime drama series on the Baudelaire case with bonus secret organization conspiracy theory content, when all we wanted to do was watch some orphans being sad and reading books
|
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Dec 7, 2016 3:27:18 GMT -5
Nothing since the first teaser has suggested a "dramatic re-enactment" interpretation, so my suggestion would be that that teaser's behind-the-scenes approach was non-indicative; the handful of scenes we've seen where Lemony is alone almost suggest the opposite, to me. So while I don't think we can establish this for certain until the show itself comes out, and whilst I also suspect that they haven't thought about it as much as we're doing, I would suggest an alternative interpretation: Rather than the show not being literal, it is Lemony who is not literal, or at least not wholly so.
|
|
|
|
Post by B. on Dec 7, 2016 4:15:35 GMT -5
Sorry if I've asked before but who tf is jacqulyn? I've read the books and there is no one called that in them wtf In the script fragments that came to light during the show's production, there is a new characters, a Jacqulyn, that is apparently a volunteer. In the TV show, it looks like she's acting as a kinda of Kit Snicket character, following the kids around and try to help them. Also, the shots with Count Olaf throwing the knife and walking around with it are TERRIFYING. I have no problem with NPH. He's going to be very scary. Finally, I have now counted two separate dresses of Violet's that are decorated with little whales! Motif, or just fun? I don't like that at all honestly, what does everyone else think about it? Adding a completely new character feels a little too much like fanfiction for my liking... I'd rather they just changed an existing character's (Kit snicket?) storyline if they were going to do that. Other than that, I really like the new trailer! I think they've really hit the nail on the head with humour. Pretty excited now. |
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Dec 7, 2016 5:26:13 GMT -5
I don't like that at all honestly, what does everyone else think about it? Adding a completely new character feels a little too much like fanfiction for my liking... I'd rather they just changed an existing character's (Kit snicket?) storyline if they were going to do that. Reserved judgement. The early books need a certain amount of revision in the light of later events, and they also need a lot of padding in order to fit a two-hour slot. That might reasonably necessitate new characters to fulfil new purposes; the real question is, as you suggest, whether or not they could have just modified or extended an existing character's storyline. Some would suggest that they have in fact done so: Hermes has argued that Jacquelyn may represent an additional J.S. implied in TPP; for my part, I would also propose that Jacquelyn could become the mysterious swimming woman who played a significant behind-the-scenes role in TGG and TPP. |
|
|
|
Post by Strangely on Dec 7, 2016 9:58:23 GMT -5
So, I've been thinking about Jacqueline's identity and I have a theory:
After seeing her regular appearance in the phone booth scene I've been wondering if perhaps they're trying to fake us out. I can't help but notice this woman's hair color looks strikingly similar to Kit Snicket's on the cover TPP. Then she disguises herself as a statue similar to how Kit disguised herself as a mannequin.
Too, it hit me that Jacqueline is also the feminine of Jacques and perhaps someone might name a brother and sister this way. So, is there a possibility that Jacqueline is actually Kit? To me the name Kit has always seemed more like a nickname and if this were the case she'd become yet another JS.
Also, within the show, we know that Jacqueline is pursuing Count Olaf, so if one was to assume the incident with the tree involved him, that would raise the question as to why he wouldn't just kill her if given the chance like he did with Jacques. If indeed she turns out to be Kit it means he spared her because of their past relationship.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by ryantrimble457 on Dec 7, 2016 10:10:29 GMT -5
So, I've been thinking about Jacqueline's identity and I have a theory: After seeing her regular appearance in the phone booth scene I've been wondering if perhaps they're trying to fake us out. I can't help but notice this woman's hair color looks strikingly similar to Kit Snicket's on the cover TPP. Then she disguises herself as a statue similar to how Kit disguised herself as a mannequin. Too, it hit me that Jacqueline is also the feminine of Jacques and perhaps someone might name a brother and sister this way. So, is there a possibility that Jacqueline is actually Kit? To me the name Kit has always seemed more like a nickname and if this were the case she'd become yet another JS. Also, within the show, we know that Jacqueline is pursuing Count Olaf, so if one was to assume the incident with the tree involved him, that would raise the question as to why he wouldn't just kill her if given the chance like he did with Jacques. If indeed she turns out to be Kit it means he spared her because of their past relationship. Any thoughts? I deeply want this to be true. She def looks like how I pictured Kit, and it all fits together. Taking a JS name as cover is very VFD-y, too. I def think we shouldn't take anything at face value so far. It would not shock me at all if Jacqueline was actually Kit. Nice for the old fans, and a twist for the new fans. Even if we don't find it out until much later in the TV show. |
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Dec 7, 2016 10:14:29 GMT -5
I think there'd have to be a very good reason for them to stage a deception mostly aimed at viewers rather than actual characters and which would mean nothing to anyone not very familiar with the text.
Personally, I suspect they mostly just wanted a Kit-like character in the early series who wouldn't pre-empt the children's meeting with the actual Kit in TGG.
|
|
|
|
Post by Strangely on Dec 7, 2016 10:41:03 GMT -5
I think there'd have to be a very good reason for them to stage a deception mostly aimed at viewers rather than actual characters and which would mean nothing to anyone not very familiar with the text. Personally, I suspect they mostly just wanted a Kit-like character in the early series who wouldn't pre-empt the children's meeting with the actual Kit in TGG. Well, in story, I think what this does is make it more believable that the Baudelaire's get into that taxi in TGG, while they may not know much about her they know she's tried to help them before. Too, from the narration side of the story it also makes LS investigation more personal, he's not just looking for the Baudelaire's, he's trying to find out what happened to his sister too. So, expanding the story beyond the Baudelaire's scope has more purpose now. From an audience perspective this also makes them more invested in the Kit character. Admittedly her role in the books is super small up until TE, so adding additional plot for her in the early books definitely helps her as a character and makes her death even more tragic when it happens. And really, why create a Kit like character only to just use Kit later on? What point would it serve to the story to introduce a subplot with a character that has no importance or role in the later stories? If this is Kit does it really ruin their meeting in TGG? Isn't it possible a previous meeting might strengthen her reintroduction in TGG, giving it more meaning? And wouldn't it just confuse the audience to have two woman who not only look similar but also engage in the same activities? And by making Jacqueline into Kit doesn't that give that entire subplot more reason to exist in the first place? I'm not saying my theory is correct, but it's certainly a possibility. Ultimately I just don't see why they'd devote so much time, especially advertising time, to a character and subplot that isn't even in the books. It must be pretty important. |
|
|
|
Post by Skelly Craig on Dec 7, 2016 10:58:58 GMT -5
Nothing since the first teaser has suggested a "dramatic re-enactment" interpretation, so my suggestion would be that that teaser's behind-the-scenes approach was non-indicative; the handful of scenes we've seen where Lemony is alone almost suggest the opposite, to me. So while I don't think we can establish this for certain until the show itself comes out, and whilst I also suspect that they haven't thought about it as much as we're doing, I would suggest an alternative interpretation: Rather than the show not being literal, it is Lemony who is not literal, or at least not wholly so. I think this needs some further elaboration, Dante. How does Lemony being alone suggest the opposite? And what do you mean by your last point? That Lemony is more imaginary than the events around him? I don't get that at all. You're saying nothing suggested a re-enactment interpretation since the first teaser, but then you acknowledge that they did do a behind-the-scenes approach. While the teaser was obviously shot exclusively for promo and isn't part of the series, I don't see why LS in the teaser wouldn't reflect his narrative approach in the actual series. Which is basically how it is in the books: Lemony is a somewhat unreliable narrator. In the realm of live action film, the unfolding story could be either called a "re-enactment" or a reconstruction of the events as told by LS. Though I do agree with the notion that the writers probably haven't thought as deeply about this aspect as this. |
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Dec 7, 2016 11:29:23 GMT -5
I think there'd have to be a very good reason for them to stage a deception mostly aimed at viewers rather than actual characters and which would mean nothing to anyone not very familiar with the text. Personally, I suspect they mostly just wanted a Kit-like character in the early series who wouldn't pre-empt the children's meeting with the actual Kit in TGG. Well, in story, I think what this does is make it more believable that the Baudelaire's get into that taxi in TGG, while they may not know much about her they know she's tried to help them before. Too, from the narration side of the story it also makes LS investigation more personal, he's not just looking for the Baudelaire's, he's trying to find out what happened to his sister too. So, expanding the story beyond the Baudelaire's scope has more purpose now. From an audience perspective this also makes them more invested in the Kit character. Admittedly her role in the books is super small up until TE, so adding additional plot for her in the early books definitely helps her as a character and makes her death even more tragic when it happens. And really, why create a Kit like character only to just use Kit later on? What point would it serve to the story to introduce a subplot with a character that has no importance or role in the later stories? If this is Kit does it really ruin their meeting in TGG? Isn't it possible a previous meeting might strengthen her reintroduction in TGG, giving it more meaning? And wouldn't it just confuse the audience to have two woman who not only look similar but also engage in the same activities? And by making Jacqueline into Kit doesn't that give that entire subplot more reason to exist in the first place? I'm not saying my theory is correct, but it's certainly a possibility. Ultimately I just don't see why they'd devote so much time, especially advertising time, to a character and subplot that isn't even in the books. It must be pretty important. I'll grant you this: You've constructed a good argument for inserting Kit into the series earlier. You've tied it into Snicket's paratextual messages to his sister in TCC and TSS, which is a clever point. I will point out that there is an argument for not putting her in before TVV because our discovery of Jacques's surname in TVV is the first concrete evidence in the series for Lemony's direct involvement in its events, which changes how we read the books; the Snicket connection, quite aside from Violet's belief in Quigley, is why the Baudelaires join her in her taxi in TGG. But you can make an argument, now that the V.F.D. conspiracy is being included in the series from a much earlier stage, that the discovery of direct Snicket involvement is less of a twist and doesn't need to be put off. I wouldn't make that argument myself, but I defer to the possibility that one could make it. But you haven't touched on what I think is the more important point, which is why the Jacquelyn deception would be necessary. What's the point of her hiding her identity at this point in time, from other characters, from the audience? And what distinguishes her particularly as Kit rather than as any other female volunteer in the series? Redundancy is not a strong enough argument for two capable volunteers to secretly be the same individual. Nothing since the first teaser has suggested a "dramatic re-enactment" interpretation, so my suggestion would be that that teaser's behind-the-scenes approach was non-indicative; the handful of scenes we've seen where Lemony is alone almost suggest the opposite, to me. So while I don't think we can establish this for certain until the show itself comes out, and whilst I also suspect that they haven't thought about it as much as we're doing, I would suggest an alternative interpretation: Rather than the show not being literal, it is Lemony who is not literal, or at least not wholly so. I think this needs some further elaboration, Dante. How does Lemony being alone suggest the opposite? And what do you mean by your last point? That Lemony is more imaginary than the events around him? I don't get that at all. You're saying nothing suggested a re-enactment interpretation since the first teaser, but then you acknowledge that they did do a behind-the-scenes approach. While the teaser was obviously shot exclusively for promo and isn't part of the series, I don't see why LS in the teaser wouldn't reflect his narrative approach in the actual series. Which is basically how it is in the books: Lemony is a somewhat unreliable narrator. In the realm of live action film, the unfolding story could be either called a "re-enactment" or a reconstruction of the events as told by LS. Though I do agree with the notion that the writers probably haven't thought as deeply about this aspect as this. Specifically, what I'm suggesting about the scenes where Lemony is alone is that they look diegetic. Snicket is having to strike a match for light; he is having to peek cautiously out from beneath a manhole. These steps would be unnecessary if he was merely strolling about a film set as he pleased while all the actors were at home; compare to the actual teaser, where overhead lights magically turn on purely for his benefit. From this I propose that the world is real; therefore, if nobody else in the world acknowledges Snicket, it is Snicket who isn't wholly there, not the world. We are not seeing a real Snicket in a reconstructed world, but a reconstructed Snicket in a real world; fake-Snicket-real-world, for short. To complicate things a bit further, though, it is also clear that these same scenes (along with, I think, one present in the script fragments) depict a real Snicket engaged in real investigations in a real world; therefore he is actually only partly reconstructed, perhaps a narratorial construct projected onto the literal Snicket who is having to undertake certain actions for his own reasons. The narration is reconstructed; the actions are genuine and historical. Real-Snicket-real-world-fake-narration. Whether or not this is possible to distinguish from real-Snicket-fake-world or fake-Snicket-real-world is up for debate; worse, it also doesn't necessarily preclude both Snicket and the world being real but on different levels of reality - real1-Snicket-real2-world, perhaps. We would have to actually see the show itself to have a chance of knowing for sure, but if they aren't making it as complicated as we are, even then it might not be clear. Such is the quagmire posed by this approach to Lemony. Let us recall that, in the books, Lemony may be "unreliable" in the sense that he is a character with his own personality and weaknesses, but the books and narration are purely literal; Lemony does not engage in them as anything other than a literal character documenting literal events in a world which he is literally a part of, with only the extraordinary success of his research method being particularly exaggerated. |
|
|
|
Post by Strangely on Dec 7, 2016 11:58:43 GMT -5
But you haven't touched on what I think is the more important point, which is why the Jacquelyn deception would be necessary. What's the point of her hiding her identity at this point in time, from other characters, from the audience? And what distinguishes her particularly as Kit rather than as any other female volunteer in the series? Redundancy is not a strong enough argument for two capable volunteers to secretly be the same individual. Well, that's a good question and I'll have to ponder it some more. I will say that perhaps Jacquelyn is using an alias to evade her enemies or so that she can operate in plain sight. And it's not necessarily a deception, rather just withholding a certain fact until the proper time. With the children, wouldn't it put them in greater harms way to know the whereabouts of any Snicket? Perhaps withholding her real identity was to limit the Baudelaire's involvement with VFD quite so early. At this time in the series knowing less makes them less of a target from the fire starters of the world. |
|
