|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2017 1:17:42 GMT -5
If anyone sees this, Patrick Warburton is going to be on Late Night with Seth Myers in about, well, two minutes! mizbizsav is actually seth myers and he has signed up to six six seven dark avenue to advertise his terrible talk show |
|
|
|
Post by ironic impostor on Jan 18, 2017 18:41:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Violent BUN Fortuna on Jan 18, 2017 20:29:04 GMT -5
I wonder how they'll handle the sugar bowl in the show. We've already had a reference to it, but I can't wait to see if they make the clues as to its contents more explicit (in the same way that they've made the V.F.D. mystery so much more obviously present from the beginning) or if they leave it as mysterious as it is in the books. What DH says about people writing to him with the correct solution to the sugar bowl is both delightful and immensely frustrating. I wonder if he lets those people know they're right or simply leaves them to stew in uncertainty ... |
|
eskaton
Reptile Researcher
Posts: 30 
Likes: 46
|
Post by eskaton on Jan 18, 2017 21:39:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Strangely on Jan 18, 2017 23:29:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ironic impostor on Jan 18, 2017 23:44:01 GMT -5
I just posted that link in the "how is the show doing" thread. Sorry. Didn't know someone beat me to the punch. Haha.
|
|
|
|
Post by meinhard1 on Jan 19, 2017 3:15:01 GMT -5
In the interview with Handler and Sonnenfeld:
“Mr. Sonnenfeld described the plan for the opening credits to me as being like ‘Monday Night Football,’” Handler said. “And then he had to explain to me what ‘Monday Night Football’ was.”
*Do* any of the opening credits resemble Monday Night Football?
|
|
|
|
Post by A comet crashing into Earth on Jan 19, 2017 6:07:59 GMT -5
Their general efforts are commendable, but I'm afraid I'm inclined to agree with those who find it problematic that all the LGBT characters (Charles excluded, he's fine) are villains. I don't think this is the kind of show which people who seek to demonise queer people will generally be interested in watching, and I realise that brilliant as the source material is, it doesn't exactly invite to much more positive representation, but I also think I have to be frank in criticising the show, and this is a valid point of criticism. Also: ...I think it's a slight overestimation to say that NPH getting a lead role in anything is a major step forward. I don't think he has much trouble finding roles, generally speaking. And finally, I know this has been brought up before, but I don't think you can interpret Olaf dressing up in drag as part of an evil plot as anything to do with gender identity. It's nice that all of this is being discussed, and I absolutely appreciate the presence of representation, but I think these points ought to be kept in mind. I'm personally hoping the show will surprise us with allusions to a transgender Isadora. |
|
|
|
Post by Liam R. Findlay on Jan 19, 2017 6:45:45 GMT -5
I don't mind so much that Sir (as a gay man) is a villain, while I agree with the fact that villainising gay people is normally detrimental. Gay villains usually support the stereotype, or at least villains with no stated sexuality can often carry stereotypically gay features (Captain Hook, Scar, Jafar, HIM, Kaa etc.) and consequently support closed-minded people's perception of gay people as bad. But Sir subverts the stereotype (which I appreciate) and I feel Charles' empathy and character arc provides enough of a positive side to override any message that gay people are unquestionably bad. Charles also acknowledges that his partner is an idiot, suggesting that not all gay partners/people act like that. Of course, it's a bit complex but I feel the representation is far more good than bad. If it were just Sir and Charles didn't exist, it'd be an awful representation  And I think the show's been good in not making any stupid jokes about Olaf dressing as a woman, which would be very easy to do. Although indeed, it's not a huge step. It's nice that the henchperson of an indeterminate gender is appreciated, although I've never entirely appreciated that they're labelled as someone with an ambiguous gender, as if others of an ambiguous gender should be identified by that feature. |
|
|
|
Post by Skelly Craig on Jan 19, 2017 7:23:14 GMT -5
I think people are forgetting that most adults in ASoUE are demonised by being presented as either villanous or stupid. In the series so far, the only exceptions to this are the 'mother' and 'father' characters and Lemony Snicket. And both are for the most part necessarily heterosexual characters (so the former are biological parents to their children, and because Lemony is in love with his perished Beatrice). I'm not really counting Jacquelyn and Monty (the latter is much less stupid here than in the books) since they are not presented as necessarily heterosexual and could easily be gay. So yeah, I don't buy that there's any correlation between LGBT characters and villains in ASoUE.
|
|
eskaton
Reptile Researcher
Posts: 30
Likes: 46
|
Post by eskaton on Jan 19, 2017 7:27:57 GMT -5
Their general efforts are commendable, but I'm afraid I'm inclined to agree with those who find it problematic that all the LGBT characters (Charles excluded, he's fine) are villains. I don't think this is the kind of show which people who seek to demonise queer people will generally be interested in watching, and I realise that brilliant as the source material is, it doesn't exactly invite to much more positive representation, but I also think I have to be frank in criticising the show, and this is a valid point of criticism. Also: ...I think it's a slight overestimation to say that NPH getting a lead role in anything is a major step forward. I don't think he has much trouble finding roles, generally speaking. And finally, I know this has been brought up before, but I don't think you can interpret Olaf dressing up in drag as part of an evil plot as anything to do with gender identity. It's nice that all of this is being discussed, and I absolutely appreciate the presence of representation, but I think these points ought to be kept in mind. I'm personally hoping the show will surprise us with allusions to a transgender Isadora. I agree with your points on NPH and Olaf dragging up. The author was really reaching with the latter. When queer characters are disproportionately portrayed as "bad guys," it can have unfortunate implications, and I understand why some people find it off-putting or objectionable. Part of the frustration for many, and why I found the headline of that article hilarious, is that the "queer villain" isn't a novelty, it's a longstanding trope, and a big reason why so many people are tired of seeing it played out. That said, I don't think having good queer representation necessarily means having positive queer representation, and expecting only positive queer portrayals (or minority characters of any kind, really) is short-sighted and misguided. This isn't anything you've suggested, but a general trend I see on places like Tumblr, Reddit, and other discussion boards. To capture an authentic, full spectrum of human behavior on screen means we have to take the bad and the ugly as well as the good. The villainous characters shouldn't go away, but more varied representation would be a good thing, and refreshing. On that point, I agree that it would be good to see Isadora confirmed to be on the LGBT spectrum later on in the series. I usually try to avoid anecdotal arguments, but for what it's worth, I'm bi and I strongly identified with villains in TV shows and movies as a kid, and I still do. I know other queer people who do as well. It wasn't until I was much older that I realized many of these characters were coded as queer, and how that "otherness" is likely what appealed to me most, because in a vague, strange way, I recognized an ally. Part of the importance of having all kids of representation is that what might seem like a negative trope or bad representation to some can be really affirming to others. |
|
|
|
Post by Liam R. Findlay on Jan 19, 2017 7:43:17 GMT -5
I forgot to mention that the article didn't mention my favourite line about boys playing with dolls.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Jan 19, 2017 8:20:01 GMT -5
Agree with Terry that most adults in ASOUE are either villainous or stupid, which makes positive representation of any group rather difficult. Still, perhaps as we go along we will see more positive portrayals - Charles, of course, appears in a more positive light in TPP, but they could introduce other characters, e.g. the Duchess (seeing whom as gay makes a lot of sense, even if it's not strictly canon). (The other plausibly-gay character, Bruce, again belongs in the 'stupid' sector, I fear.)
I'm not sure the HOIG is a villain exactly (though I haven't seen the whole series yet, so I may be missing something). They are currently on the villainous side, but it's likely they've been pressured into it, given what we find out in TCC and TSS about how Olaf exploits his henchpeople's low self-esteem. It will be interesting to see how their arc works out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Strangely on Jan 19, 2017 10:37:19 GMT -5
Honestly, I've never considered Sir a villain, especially in this version. He didn't even know Orwell was hypnotizing the employees. Too, he gave the Baudelaire's a place to live and food to eat in exchange for work and in his mind he was doing the Baudelaire's a favor by offering them the job. They had no place else to go, his offer meant they wouldn't be living on the streets, which would have made it easier for Olaf to get them. Even when he thought they were causing accidents he was barely even considering giving them to Shirley. Sure, he's greedy, but not a villain.
Consider the two straight couples we know of, the Baudelaire's and Quagmire's, they lied to their children leaving them fully unprepared for the world, putting them in massive danger. That's on top of doing dangerous and sometimes terrible things in the name of good. When you get down to it, all of the adults in this world do bad things for any number of reasons and it almost always ends up affecting those they love. Ultimately, there's no couple in this universe who's perfect and beyond having done bad things.
Sir and Charles at least are given a complex relationship rather than just being stereotypes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skelly Craig on Jan 20, 2017 13:10:25 GMT -5
The choreographer of the show has his own YouTube account and posted a nifty side-by-side comparison video of rehearsal footage they did for "The Count" song along with the final outcome:
|
|
