|
|
Post by gothicarchiesfan on May 7, 2018 0:01:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by A comet crashing into Earth on May 7, 2018 2:20:03 GMT -5
Would anyone else not want The End to end with the regular credits music? I'm not sure that I want The End to end at all. But that seems a bit much to hope for, so I'll settle for hoping for a more melancholy ending tune than the other episodes - or maybe no tune at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Liam R. Findlay on May 7, 2018 3:42:03 GMT -5
I couldn't say what music I'd want the credits to have without knowing what the ending moment or tone of the episode will be.
|
|
|
|
Post by gothicarchiesfan on May 7, 2018 11:09:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on May 7, 2018 17:31:41 GMT -5
If Avi isn’t, maybe it is just yelling, ‘Violet!’. I don’t know, I hope for more. OK but I just snorted with laughter because this made me think about all the Duncan/Violet stuff they added into the show, and about how they've still got to include the Violet/Quigley stuff, which in turn made me think ... what if they showed both Quigley and Duncan shouting Violet's name, and the Quagmires' story just ends on a distinctly awkward note as they just turn to look at each other and realise they have a few things they kind of need to discuss (after they've dealt with TGU, that is). It seems to me that Duncan/Violet is in the books (unlike Klaus/Isadora, which strikes me as entirely imaginary), since Duncan keeps his hand on hers throughout the concert, which is presumably what prompts Nero to call him 'your boyfriend' the next morning. This is inaccurate, of course, but perhaps not baseless. Since the Neflix series doesn't have the concert, they had to convey it in some other way. |
|
|
|
Post by lemonmeringue on May 7, 2018 19:43:24 GMT -5
Actually, when I first read TAA, the first thing that striked me was, that the children somehow felt "paired" and usually always called the name of their respective "counterpart" of the opposite gender, and always spending more time with them. While there was not really anything "going on" it was fairly obvious. The response to the scenes in the show actually surpised me, because I don't think any of this was changed from the book - aside from Sunny's comment - but I think most simply forgot about it after Violet/Quigley happened?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dante on May 8, 2018 3:09:47 GMT -5
It seemed to me that rather more in the direction of Klaus/Isadora was added to the Netflix adaptation, whereas Violet/Duncan appeared no stronger and perhaps even weaker than it was in the book; and I confess to a little surprise whenever I see the latter extolled as newly-canonised rather than the former.
|
|
|
|
Post by gliquey on May 8, 2018 6:35:47 GMT -5
Actually, when I first read TAA, the first thing that striked me was, that the children somehow felt "paired" and usually always called the name of their respective "counterpart" of the opposite gender, and always spending more time with them. While there was not really anything "going on" it was fairly obvious. The response to the scenes in the show actually surpised me, because I don't think any of this was changed from the book - aside from Sunny's comment - but I think most simply forgot about it after Violet/Quigley happened? I can't speak for anyone else but I reckon I've read the books about 10 times each so this isn't a case of forgetting anything. Indeed there are moments in TAA where they are "paired", but they are few and quite subtle; things like Klaus and Isadora being in the same class are not exactly evidence of them being in love, given that neither of them were in control of that. On the other hand, the Netflix series is very overt about it, with multiple lines of dialogue, pauses in the scene etc. for the cutesy-awkward bits like "VB+DQ" and Klaus commenting on Isadora's disguised appearance. I don't think the problem is that the Netflix show includes any shipping, but that they include so much more than the books. And it's a very different type of implication; I read the book characters as not at all thinking about relationships, but just liking the other's company and somehow feeling different (a twinge of excitement, maybe) when the other is around, whereas scratching "VB+DQ" into a statue is clear evidence of Duncan fantasising about some kind of relationship. |
|
|
|
Post by lemonmeringue on May 8, 2018 6:53:29 GMT -5
I don't mean them being in the same class, more their general behaviour. But I don't mean "paired" in a romantic sense - I just felt like their friendship was more focused that way, and I actually thought that was Handler's choice rather than focusing as much on "girls and girls are friends and boys and boys". It was exaggarated in the series, but the claims that nothing was there in the books is simply not true. As for VB+DQ, I think it's maybe for "added drama" with Violet actually getting romantic with his pretty much identical triplet.
|
|
|
|
Post by gothicarchiesfan on May 8, 2018 11:43:20 GMT -5
If you go onto the official Instagram account and look under stories, Louis Hynes and Maloina Weissman posted a tour of the studio's set and props department. www.instagram.com/unfortunate |
|
|
|
Post by gothicarchiesfan on May 8, 2018 18:24:07 GMT -5
This was posted on the Private instagram of a stuntperson who works on the show.  |
|
|
|
Post by Violent BUN Fortuna on May 8, 2018 18:46:14 GMT -5
OK but I just snorted with laughter because this made me think about all the Duncan/Violet stuff they added into the show, and about how they've still got to include the Violet/Quigley stuff, which in turn made me think ... what if they showed both Quigley and Duncan shouting Violet's name, and the Quagmires' story just ends on a distinctly awkward note as they just turn to look at each other and realise they have a few things they kind of need to discuss (after they've dealt with TGU, that is). It seems to me that Duncan/Violet is in the books (unlike Klaus/Isadora, which strikes me as entirely imaginary), since Duncan keeps his hand on hers throughout the concert, which is presumably what prompts Nero to call him 'your boyfriend' the next morning. This is inaccurate, of course, but perhaps not baseless. Since the Neflix series doesn't have the concert, they had to convey it in some other way. It's true that they have it, but not in the way the show represents -- that was what I meant.  Also, as I said somewhere else at some point, I always felt it was noticeable that Duncan and Isadora were very physically affectionate with Violet and Klaus -- patting/holding their hands, as you say -- but that Violet and Klaus never actually reciprocated these gestures (that is, although they didn't object to the hand-holding, they never actually held or patted Duncan and/or Isadora's hands, or initiated such contact), which I find interesting, particularly as Violet does take hold of Quigley's hand, a moment which I thought contrasted the two relationships nicely. But yeah, I was more just thinking of all the very overt stuff they added to the show -- I wasn't saying Duncan never showed any affection towards Violet. |
|
|
|
Post by Violent BUN Fortuna on May 8, 2018 18:48:38 GMT -5
Actually, when I first read TAA, the first thing that striked me was, that the children somehow felt "paired" and usually always called the name of their respective "counterpart" of the opposite gender, and always spending more time with them. While there was not really anything "going on" it was fairly obvious. The response to the scenes in the show actually surpised me, because I don't think any of this was changed from the book - aside from Sunny's comment - but I think most simply forgot about it after Violet/Quigley happened? I can't speak for anyone else but I reckon I've read the books about 10 times each so this isn't a case of forgetting anything. Indeed there are moments in TAA where they are "paired", but they are few and quite subtle; things like Klaus and Isadora being in the same class are not exactly evidence of them being in love, given that neither of them were in control of that. On the other hand, the Netflix series is very overt about it, with multiple lines of dialogue, pauses in the scene etc. for the cutesy-awkward bits like "VB+DQ" and Klaus commenting on Isadora's disguised appearance. I don't think the problem is that the Netflix show includes any shipping, but that they include so much more than the books. And it's a very different type of implication; I read the book characters as not at all thinking about relationships, but just liking the other's company and somehow feeling different (a twinge of excitement, maybe) when the other is around, whereas scratching "VB+DQ" into a statue is clear evidence of Duncan fantasising about some kind of relationship. ^ This describes exactly what I thought. |
|
|
|
Post by countadrian on May 8, 2018 21:17:25 GMT -5
I agree that it may be a bit too much “explicit”, but you have to consider that everything else is totally explicit. You can’t have in an audiovisual format the subtilities that come from a novel/series of books. The books have the wonderful experience that you can re read them and go back whenever you want, and follow the words at your own rhythm. Movies and tv shows work differently, and honestly there’s just too much going on the background of the books to be left that way on tv. They need to be more precise in what they’re talking about. Plus, once again, the little romance certainly must come from Netflix itself... they have to put a bit of romance to make sure they will get back some of the HUGE amount of money they put into it. It could’ve been much worse, and simply show Violet and Duncan kissing and making out. It is a bit sad, but compared to all the beauty and essence of Lemony Snicket that has been profoundly captured, I don’t mind those small details.
|
|
|
|
Post by Uncle Algernon on May 9, 2018 5:09:20 GMT -5
This was posted on the Private instagram of a stuntperson who works on the show. "So this is how they bid the Emperor of all Thespians a final farewell… with dessert and refreshment. …Can I have a share?
Also, can ghosts eat? And can they inherit large fortunes? At any rate, I'll make a killing next time we put on Hamlet." |
|
