|
Post by Strangely on Jan 6, 2017 0:11:42 GMT -5
If it is just a red herring though I don't see how it's a major twist like the reviewers are saying. Too, they'd have to find a way to weave the red herring into the story so that it actually relates to something important rather than just being a waste of time.
Either way I'm not particularly worried about it. The reviews are too good for this big reveal to be something stupid or poorly thought out.
|
|
|
Post by meinhard1 on Jan 6, 2017 0:18:42 GMT -5
We have every reason to expect the series will be thematically faithful. If a parent really is alive, DH and the writers will need to have an idea how this fits into the series' tragic tone and overarching progression into increasing ambiguity.
Like others, I think they may bring the "survivor" plot line forward... this has already been hinted at
|
|
Noe
Catastrophic Captain
???
Posts: 93
Likes: 82
|
Post by Noe on Jan 6, 2017 1:03:26 GMT -5
Having their parents be alive would be the dumbest change and disappointing. The whole series is because they're real orphans. Also, what makes ppl think it's cobie smulders? i know there's that picture of everyone infront of the mill, but that lady barely looks like her. I can say that's will arnett but her, not sure about that. If she is ok i'm wrong, but I personally don't think that she gonna be in the show well, Cobie was in a party where the whole cast attended back in july, and in the picture infront of the mill it looks like her... she's definitely in the show. I'll believe you.. guess we will see in exactly a week from now!
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jan 6, 2017 3:20:09 GMT -5
I could certainly live with this twist on the grounds that it ties together a number of plot threads from the original books which ultimately went nowhere satisfying; the Baudelaire passageway, the survivor in the snowman, the inordinately misleading Snicket File. The fact that the series is still dedicated to a dead Beatrice indicates that the twist would be unlikely to "stick," anyway; I would foresee instead a more direct and meaningful sacrifice for their children, were the Baudelaire parents to have been resurrected.
The major problem with us being given a pair of fake-out parent survivors who are ultimately revealed to be some random people is that we would need to be given a very good reason to care. Otherwise, the twist ceases to be a twist and instead becomes a cop-out that cheated us emotionally and wasted our time. So, be content that the subplot has every potential to be badly mishandled no matter what direction it goes in.
|
|
|
Post by Violent BUN Fortuna on Jan 6, 2017 9:35:51 GMT -5
I also doubt that the Baudelaire parents will survive -- the fact that they don't survive is essentially the backbone of the series, so it would be very odd to change that. But I do think they might be bringing in the survivor subplot earlier than the books do, though perhaps the children don't know about it? There seem to be a number of scenes without the children present, so we may be getting some parallel story lines (perhaps including the Quagmires) ...
I don't think the plot threads which were never tied up in the books weren't satisfying; I always felt that was an integral (and brilliant) part of the series -- that we DON'T get answers to everything, that we're left wondering and coming up with theories and ideas and questions. For me it simply adds to the whole atmosphere of smoke and mirrors. I like that we get to only see parts of VFD; much of the organisation's work is blurred and hidden from view, and that's the way it should be, even to volunteers within the series. I love reading all the tantalising little threads of additional storylines which Snicket weaves in but which often ultimately vanish into the much larger and much more confusing tapestry that is ASOUE, and which may never be picked up again -- because that's what happens in real life, and he heightens it and calls attention to how many mysteries we will never fully understand.
I wouldn't like it if that element of the series were changed, because it's such an important part of ASOUE, something Snicket emphasises in The End. So if the Netflix series does aim to tie together any plot threads like this, I hope they do it very, very carefully, and leave things in such a way that we still don't get answers to everything -- for every question answered, new mysteries begin to unfold. So while I always want to know more about this world, I also want any extra knowledge we get to be consistent to the tone of the series.
Essentially, I don't want them to neatly wrap everything up and answer every question, and if they DO answer some of the questions left unanswered in the books, I hope those answers only pave the way for more questions to be asked.
|
|
|
Post by ironic impostor on Jan 6, 2017 10:04:25 GMT -5
I also doubt that the Baudelaire parents will survive -- the fact that they don't survive is essentially the backbone of the series, so it would be very odd to change that. But I do think they might be bringing in the survivor subplot earlier than the books do, though perhaps the children don't know about it? There seem to be a number of scenes without the children present, so we may be getting some parallel story lines (perhaps including the Quagmires) ... I don't think the plot threads which were never tied up in the books weren't satisfying; I always felt that was an integral (and brilliant) part of the series -- that we DON'T get answers to everything, that we're left wondering and coming up with theories and ideas and questions. For me it simply adds to the whole atmosphere of smoke and mirrors. I like that we get to only see parts of VFD; much of the organisation's work is blurred and hidden from view, and that's the way it should be, even to volunteers within the series. I love reading all the tantalising little threads of additional storylines which Snicket weaves in but which often ultimately vanish into the much larger and much more confusing tapestry that is ASOUE, and which may never be picked up again -- because that's what happens in real life, and he heightens it and calls attention to how many mysteries we will never fully understand. I wouldn't like it if that element of the series were changed, because it's such an important part of ASOUE, something Snicket emphasises in The End. So if the Netflix series does aim to tie together any plot threads like this, I hope they do it very, very carefully, and leave things in such a way that we still don't get answers to everything -- for every question answered, new mysteries begin to unfold. So while I always want to know more about this world, I also want any extra knowledge we get to be consistent to the tone of the series. Essentially, I don't want them to neatly wrap everything up and answer every question, and if they DO answer some of the questions left unanswered in the books, I hope those answers only pave the way for more questions to be asked. I agree one-hundred percent. I always thought The End was the inevitable type of conclusion to ASoUE. The entire series tantalizes the audience by coming so close to answers and yet hardly ever actually providing them. I always loved that about it. I really don't want the show to stray too far from that thematic arc.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Jan 6, 2017 11:22:07 GMT -5
Well, as I keep saying, a lot of questions were answered: e.g. what does 'VFD' stand for, who is Beatrice, who is the survivor of the fire (there seems to be a bit of a retcon there - though it would only be visible to people who had read TUA - but we do end up with a definite answer), what is the significance of Olaf's tattoo, why is there an underground passage between the Baudelaire mansion and 667, etc. etc. The overall moral is not 'none of your questions will ever be answered' but 'no matter how many of your questions are answered, you will never know everything, because there are always more mysteries'.
I think a lot of people were hoping for something that was The Answer - though they were always unclear about what The Question was (shades of 42) - and were disappointed not to get that. But I have seen clear misstatements like 'we are never told what VFD is' or 'we are never told what happened to the Quagmires'. Also 'through twelve books we are waiting for an answer to the mystery, but we never get one' - though in fact there's no suggestion of a mystery in books 1-4, and it's not central to the story until about book 8. And indeed, the biggest mystery that isn't solved, the sugar bowl, isn't highlighted until book 10.
I noticed one of the reviewers referred to the Baudelaires searching for a solution to the mystery of their parents' death, and if you think that is the central mystery you may be disappointed that it's never answered; but actually it is never treated as very important within the story.
Now as to the survivors: I agree with all those who say that the Baudelaire parents can't really have survived; if they had, the children wouldn't be orphans. and Beatrice wouldn't be 'Darling. Dearest, Dead' (and we now know they are keeping that element). So the scenes which involve surviving parents must be a red herring. This parallels what we get in the books, though it comes earlier, because the mystery element is introduced earlier. The likeliest guess is that they are the Quagmire parents - which would be a change from the books, but a lesser one - though at the moment that's just speculation.
|
|
|
Post by Violent BUN Fortuna on Jan 6, 2017 11:43:46 GMT -5
Oh yes, we certainly do get answers to many, many questions, and it would be downright incorrect to say that we didn't get answers to questions such as the identity of Beatrice, who the survivor is, what VFD stands for, ec. -- but therein lies the crux of it: for every fresh answer we get, we get a whole host of new questions, some of which are answered and some of which aren't. I just hope that theme of constantly arising new mysteries, some answered, some unanswered, is kept up in Netflix's adaptation -- and I think it will be. As you say, the series does not suggest that we will never get answers to anything, but that there are always more mysteries and we will never know everything (though I'm not sure whether I would call it a moral, precisely, but certainly something related to one. Perhaps a third cousin four times removed, or a fourth cousin three times removed.).
|
|
|
Post by mizbizsav on Jan 6, 2017 13:20:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mizbizsav on Jan 6, 2017 13:24:22 GMT -5
The end of the first interview confirms there's something new with the Baudelaire parents: "With Handler writing the scripts – and supervising the screenplays for the second season, should Netflix decide to renew the series – the author hasn’t been afraid to shake things up, adding in an 'intriguing subplot' about the Baudelaire parents, says Sonnenfeld."
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Dent on Jan 6, 2017 13:29:53 GMT -5
Thank god they're keeping the original ending!
|
|
|
Post by mizbizsav on Jan 6, 2017 14:41:21 GMT -5
There's a new trailer on Netflix and a bunch of new stills.
|
|
larina
Reptile Researcher
Posts: 47
Likes: 79
|
Post by larina on Jan 6, 2017 14:41:36 GMT -5
This bit from the BS interview "The script is sharp and funny thanks to Handler and the team of writers, but Sonnenfeld says that some of the funniest lines came from Harris improvising. He mentions a specific line that Olaf has in Episode 2 about an hourglass that he bought online." confirms that the line so many people were unhappy with was, indeed, impovised. It's ironic how proud the director seems of the line, considering how much it pissed off some of the fans.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Dent on Jan 6, 2017 14:55:40 GMT -5
This bit from the BS interview "The script is sharp and funny thanks to Handler and the team of writers, but Sonnenfeld says that some of the funniest lines came from Harris improvising. He mentions a specific line that Olaf has in Episode 2 about an hourglass that he bought online." confirms that the line so many people were unhappy with was, indeed, impovised. It's ironic how proud the director seems of the line, considering how much it pissed off some of the fans. I didn't particularly like the line, but I do feel people really overreacted. It was mostly movie!fans who wanted everything to be steampunk and Victorian again. Also, what's this about a new trailer?
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jan 6, 2017 15:02:38 GMT -5
That throwaway line from Sonnenfeld where he says they would have to throw away the last two books if they wanted to continue past the original ending scared me. That scared me so, so much, although from what else is in the interview it sounds like the plan is to keep everything the same. But when I initially read that line, I had a heart attack at just the faintest prospect of TPP getting the axe. NO. The huge hotel, every character ever (ever), concierge flaneurs, the harpoon gun, all the grey morality, are you who I think you are? Wrong! Wrong! If getting an ASOUE adaptation is the broad, general goal, then getting TPP is the cherry on top. I would actually cry if that was never going to happen. As I read it, that was a throwaway idea for if they were hypothetically commissioned to do more seasons - and he's quite right, you would have to lose or at the very least delay TPP and The End. (Or alternatively, for TPP at least, branch it at the Baudelaires being offered a taxi ride.) But Sonnenfeld also makes it clear that following the plan of the books is what he wants to do, so you really shouldn't have to worry about that.
|
|