|
Post by sgtstone on Jan 16, 2017 13:09:57 GMT -5
Maybe it was because of the reveal in episode 7 I assumed that the fire with the Quagmires was the same fire as the one that burned down the town at the mill. Which wouldn't make any sense because of the library of books written about it and how the Baudelaires put out the fire. But if that's the case why were the Quagmires over the lake? and what was the scene where they saw the mill off in the distance implying that's where they were going. The show seemed to line up multiple things saying the house is at the mill, I just can't figure out a timeline that actually makes any sense here. The Quagmire plot line is happening at the same time as the Baudelaire's story. They weren't flying to Paltryville, they just happened to be passing near it on the way to their home. The identical doors were only for the fake-out and possibly to imply that Lucky Smells Lumber Mill helped in the construction of the Quagmire mansion like in the books (which makes sense given that Dr. Orwell's office is confirmed to have at one time been VFD headquarters). The Paltryville fire occurred many years before, sometime after that photograph was taken but before the misfortune that befell the Baudelaire's. OK that makes sense, I'll have to watch it again, I remember multiple moments where it was heavily implied that they were specifically going to the mill.
|
|
|
Post by BSam on Jan 16, 2017 14:23:42 GMT -5
In the books I think there was definitely an implication, I vaguely recall a passage about him attending their parties. I agree though, making him just a business contact and not a friend helps the story. It didn't make sense that a family friend would treat the children so awfully and with so much disinterest. His neglect feels so less personal this time around. As a result I don't hate him as much and find him more amusing. in the Rare edition of TBB, there is a very large implication that he's somehow connected, it basically says mr poe is wearing a hat and there's probably a sugar bowl hidden inside his hat. or something like that
|
|
|
Post by ryantrimble457 on Jan 16, 2017 14:30:52 GMT -5
In the books I think there was definitely an implication, I vaguely recall a passage about him attending their parties. I agree though, making him just a business contact and not a friend helps the story. It didn't make sense that a family friend would treat the children so awfully and with so much disinterest. His neglect feels so less personal this time around. As a result I don't hate him as much and find him more amusing. Agreed. You like him a lot more cuz he REALLY is trying to do a good job, and just...not being able to.
|
|
|
Post by ryantrimble457 on Jan 16, 2017 14:31:14 GMT -5
In the books I think there was definitely an implication, I vaguely recall a passage about him attending their parties. I agree though, making him just a business contact and not a friend helps the story. It didn't make sense that a family friend would treat the children so awfully and with so much disinterest. His neglect feels so less personal this time around. As a result I don't hate him as much and find him more amusing. in the Rare edition of TBB, there is a very large implication that he's somehow connected, it basically says mr poe is wearing a hat and there's probably a sugar bowl hidden inside his hat. or something like that Oh yes! I remember that. Hmm.
|
|
|
Post by lorelai on Jan 16, 2017 18:17:35 GMT -5
Had my mom take a look at the hat, and there are flowers on it, but she says it's covered with more feathers than flowers; I'm thinking they went with that word choice because feathery might have confused people, and the fire is the more important bit, which she goes into quite a lot of detail on. Odd, but forgivable, especially since this is the describer's second job for netflix and their third audio description job altogether.
|
|
|
Post by mortinson51 on Jan 17, 2017 2:39:54 GMT -5
Couple of things of interest. I thought vast majoriry of the changes were excellent and help improve the series.
1. In the first episode when Lemony talks with the fire starting in the background you can actaully see a light beam come in and set fire to the Baudilare's house. This is a nice improvement to the movie and tied into the Esme scene.
2. I like the reference to Nero being a hypno keyword but does that mean that Nero himself is hypnotized. And if he is I wonder want this means for TAA
3. I loved every single ATWQ reference and how it helps add to both stories. I'm even more hopeful that we will get an adaptation.
4. The Parent subplot was good I love all those scenes but I thought it was a little too misleading. I think if you didn't know about the Quagmire you would never have figured it out.
5. I am still on board with the Jacqueline/kit thoery still holds strong. Since the children refer to her as the statue Lady and it is only Poe who calls her by her name. The only ratchet in the thoery is Olaf does call her by her name when they meet on the boat. Since Olaf would know who Kit is since they were romantic at a point. So then it seems odd to change the snicket siblings genders just to trick the Audience. it could also just be a new character. Who I liked very much
6. I liked Ish but it seems odd if it's the same Ish. I hope if it's the same character we will get a flashback how he ends up in the island. plus he should start growing his beard now.
7. I'm supper excited for the feature while this season did have a couple stumbles it is still a vast improvement to the movie and it is defiantly in the right direction for me. I loved this so much. Very happy.
|
|
|
Post by utahcutiger on Jan 17, 2017 3:44:02 GMT -5
5. I am still on board with the Jacqueline/kit thoery still holds strong. Since the children refer to her as the statue Lady and it is only Poe who calls her by her name. The only ratchet in the thoery is Olaf does call her by her name when they meet on the boat. Since Olaf would know who Kit is since they were romantic at a point. So then it seems odd to change the snicket siblings genders just to trick the Audience. it could also just be a new character. Who I liked very much It is possible that Olaf called her that ironically, mockingly like "I know very well who you actually are. Because I think you're right. Switching the genders for the sole purpose of a fake out would be a strange move
|
|
crono288
Catastrophic Captain
Posts: 70
Likes: 45
|
Post by crono288 on Jan 17, 2017 4:38:01 GMT -5
I think Jacqueline seems too young to be Kit in disguise - Sarah Canning is only 29, and Olaf should presumably be at least in his 40s, which adds up to more of an age gap between the two than I'm prepared to believe.
|
|
|
Post by BSam on Jan 17, 2017 6:36:30 GMT -5
olaf was ready to marry a child. cmon man
|
|
|
Post by Groge on Jan 17, 2017 6:36:48 GMT -5
I think Jacqueline seems too young to be Kit in disguise - Sarah Canning is only 29, and Olaf should presumably be at least in his 40s, which adds up to more of an age gap between the two than I'm prepared to believe. The actress may be 29 but if the creators said "Jaqueline is 35" would you believe it? Not that I'm saying she looks much older but if that's how old she is meant to be then I would just accept it. If they said 40 I'd be like "hang on a minute!" If anything I would find it more believable if the age gap was rather large. I know plenty of couples who are around 40 & 50 for example. If the age gap was larger than that then I certainly wouldn't put it past a guy like Olaf. Especially, and let's face it, he said he wouldn't just throw Violet away after getting the fortune. Or words to that effect. So for now let's say that Jacqueline (Kit!) is around 35 whereas as Olaf is more like 50.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Jan 17, 2017 8:47:54 GMT -5
Bear in mind that Olaf is prematurely aged by a life of villainy - this was always suspected, but is now canon.
Form the books, it looks as if the central group of adults (Bertrand and Beatrice, the Snickets, the Denouements, Olaf and R) are all about the same age; mid thirties is the youngest they can be, supposing Beatrice was over 20 when Violet was born, but they could be a bit older. Kit is still young enough to have a child, though. I tend to see Esme as a bit younger, since O was her acting teacher, but that's not certain.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jan 17, 2017 15:41:57 GMT -5
Here are my thoughts on the Quagmire subplot.
I said before the series aired that they would have to be careful to have a justification for the twist other than purely to have a twist, and for the most part, that was handled satisfactorily. The key factor was that the Quagmire fire hadn't actually happened yet, so what the Quagmire parents were used for was to more effectively set up a parallel to the Baudelaire family life; to imply how the Baudelaire parents might also have been living a double life, to show us the sorts of adventures they might also have been having off-screen, and to use that to set up the introduction of the Quagmire triplets for the next series. It wasn't really a new plotline so much as an illustration of what we already knew, which also provided some context for the Quagmires prior to their entrance into the main storyline.
Insofar as the presentation of this plotline was handled in TMM, I don't really have any complaints. Having the Quagmire parents drive seemingly directly towards the lumbermill as opposed to simply in the same general direction was a little cheap, and I don't recall if we ever got an answer as to who they were calling up from their convenient lorry-phone, but the sequence at the Very Fancy Door worked primarily because it was so contrived, and the reversal of expectations was very directly relevant to the Baudelaires' storyline. However, when we examine the presentation of the subplot in previous episodes, then once we know the truth then many of the previous cutaways to the Quagmire subplot appear quite apropos of nothing. I feel that the use of Peru was particularly harmful; the show sets up what seems like an explanation for why Monty would be told to take the Baudelaires to Peru, that being to reunite with their parents - but then, once we know the truth, this "explanation" is replaced with no explanation; we no longer have an answer to the Peru problem. Indeed, if anything we have an anti-explanation, in that the events in Peru actually indicate it to be quite a hostile country for members of V.F.D., in which they're liable to be locked up in prisons or attacked by the locals in bars. Why would it be a good idea to take the Baudelaires here?
That's not the critical flaw, though. The big problem with the Quagmire subplot is something that I don't recall anyone anticipating. Perhaps that's because it's not actually, per se, a flaw in the Quagmire subplot itself; rather, it introduces a flaw into another subplot which has yet to appear on-screen: Specifically, the Snicket File subplot. And that flaw is that it's exactly the same plot. Evidence suggests that a/the Baudelaire parent/s is/are still alive, but instead it turns out to be a/the Quagmire/s. I don't see how the writers can lead us on exactly the same song and dance over again, not just in one season but across the gap between the second and third seasons as well. Even a casual viewer who hadn't read the books would notice this obvious repetition.
Fortunately, there is still an upside to the whole situation, which is that the Snicket File subplot as written makes no sense (and not just because of Quigley) and is in dire need of an overhaul anyway. The simplest fix to the repetition would be to ignore any suggestion that Quigley has anything to do with the contents of the Snicket File and keep the ambiguity over a parent's possible survival running right until The End.
|
|
|
Post by A comet crashing into Earth on Jan 17, 2017 16:35:36 GMT -5
The big problem with the Quagmire subplot is somthing that I don't recall anyone anticipating. To borrow a catchphrase, "Um." Speaking of which: Now that the viewers have had their red herring hint at surviving Baudelaire parents, I wonder whether the children will still have theirs in the later books, and how that would work. Though I guess it's true that I didn't anticipate it, since I didn't post that until I'd watched the whole season.
|
|
|
Post by gliquey on Jan 17, 2017 16:52:13 GMT -5
That's not the critical flaw, though. The big problem with the Quagmire subplot is somthing that I don't recall anyone anticipating. Perhaps that's because it's not actually, per se, a flaw in the Quagmire subplot itself; rather, it introduces a flaw into another subplot which has yet to appear on-screen: Specifically, the Snicket File subplot. And that flaw is that it's exactly the same plot. Evidence suggests that a/the Baudelaire parent/s is/are still alive, but instead it turns out to be a/the Quagmire/s. I don't see how the writers can lead us on exactly the same song and dance over again, not just in one season but across the gap between the second and third seasons as well. Even a casual viewer who hadn't read the books would notice this obvious repetition. Fortunately, there is still an upside to the whole situation, which is that the Snicket File subplot as written makes no sense (and not just because of Quigley) and is in dire need of an overhaul anyway. The simplest fix to the repetition would be to ignore any suggestion that Quigley has anything to do with the contents of the Snicket File and keep the ambiguity over a parent's possible survival running right until The End. The Snicket File subplot really does make very little sense and to remove the 'survivor' element and put it in the first season makes sense to me. We know the Snicket File contained condemning evidence about Olaf and many other members on the evil side of V.F.D. so assuming the Snicket File will still be part of THH-TSS, the Netflix series may simply focus on this aspect of it. I wouldn't expect the Baudelaires to hear anything about one of their parents possibly surviving the fire at all.
|
|
|
Post by mortinson51 on Jan 17, 2017 23:33:54 GMT -5
One thing I thought of wasn't Carmelita Spats cast for this season I don't remember ever seeing here in the TAA scene. I wonder if that scene got cut or if they decided just to cast ahead for season 2.
|
|