Sinister Duo Questions

[Grace]

The idea that they are primarily judges makes a lot of sense to me. "Power corrupts" is such a huge part of these books.

[gliquey]

I think the sinister duo are the only two irredeemable characters in the series. We see redeeming traits of "villains" like Fernald and Olaf, but these two people want to watch the world burn*. Their motive seems to just be destruction and chaos - perhaps it's rooted in a less impulsive reason like revenge, but whatever the reason, they have fun burning down the V.F.D. headquarters, and that's why they do it.

(*I wrote this sentence before seeing Uncle Algernon using the exact same phrase. It's very fitting for these characters.)

Apr 22, 2018 4:37:40 GMT -5 Uncle Algernon said:

As for why they're doing what they're doing… if they don't just want to literally Watch The World Burn^TM, my thinking is that they're out to destroy VFD altogether. Perhaps they have a sliver of good intentions in them, or did at one point: they saw how powerful VFD was, and, being Judges of the High Court (I'm assuming they already were before they turned evil), they had a love for justice and order that clashed with the idea of a secret organization that could just disregard the law at any time and act on its own, possibly flawed morals. Since the whole problem was that there was nothing more powerful than VFD to keep VFD in check, they then decided the only way to destroy VFD and restore order to the world was to turn VFD against itself. 

I think it's an interesting idea, that they were judges working for "good" and then turned evil. Perhaps this is the sort of naivety that the "chef's salad" theme is opposed to, but I think they were always evil, despite having normal childhoods (as Dante mentions). One of them mentions have a child servant before the schism in TSS, I believe, and their love of fire seems like they're so far beyond what could be considered a moral code that I don't quite buy the "turning evil after losing faith" argument.

Apr 22, 2018 22:05:49 GMT -5 vfds321s said:

By Ultimate villains, I meant that they were the most evil in the series and the driving force behind it. If the Sinister Duo weren't evil there would be no schism. No schism, no Olaf turning evil. no Olaf turning evil. no fire. no fire, no series of unfortunate events. They don't necessarily have to be the main villains.

Here are some examples:

Beauty and the Beast: The enchantress was the one that turned the prince into the beast and started the conflict, but the main villain is still Gaston.

The Incredibles: Bomb Voyage had a minor role but still caused the outlawing of supers. Is he the main villain? No! That would be Syndrome

Despicable Me: Vector is the main villain, yet his father Mr. Perkins, the owner of the Bank of Evil, is the Greater Scope Villain.

Never has to be the primary antagonist in order to be the ultimate evil. And the same applies here. I really did think judges were their disguise as there is a Judge disguise in TUA and I can't really see real Judges betray each other like they did with Justice Strauss. Thanks for also disputing my pawn assumption. The other villains are pawns in the sense that they are the ones that make the other villains shriek in terror, leaving them with no other choice but to obey out of fear of what will happen if they dare to cross them. But I agree now, they only use other villains when they need to, then probably pay them a good amount of money and let them go on their merry way unless or until they summon them again. I hope that clears some stuff up.

Indeed, I think it is more common for a purely evil character to be not the main villain, because giving them less 'screentime' allows them to remain mysterious, adding to their aura of menace. It is difficult to sustain a display of pure evil from the main antagonist who appears often (outside of perhaps works designed for young children). Even characters who are seen as beyond redemption and are also the main villain (e.g. Voldemort in Harry Potter; Moriarty in Sherlock) are generally working behind the scenes, and actually only appear in person for important scenes.

However, I think it's fairly certain that the duo were qualified judges. Justice Strauss specifically says that she was passing information to them accidentally for years and they then gloat about this. The point here is that being a "real judge" is no indicator of being a good person; the systems are corrupt and evil people still manage to get into high standing in society.

[Grace]

Apr 26, 2018 20:35:55 GMT -5 gliquey said:

However, I think it's fairly certain that the duo were qualified judges. Justice Strauss specifically says that she was passing information to them accidentally for years and they then gloat about this. The point here is that being a "real judge" is no indicator of being a good person; the systems are corrupt and evil people still manage to get into high standing in society.

Nice quote, I had forgotten about that.

[vfds321s]

I'm starting to wonder if the duo are members of VFD in the first place. They had an infant slave BEFORE the schism even happened so if they were in VFD, why would nobody (volunteer or villain, cause even villains may have standards) object to this practice (The duo even say at one point that the infant slave did not grow up, in a sinister, "we killed it but we won't say exact words because you all know what we meant" kind of tone).


Also, what is the origin of the word sinister duo?

[Dante]

Presumably the idea is that the infant slave was not widely-known about; or their slave status could have been somehow disguised, in the same way Count Olaf effectively made the Baudelaires slave for him during his time as their guardian without Mr. Poe batting an eyelid.

As for the "sinister duo" moniker, it's been used on 667 as an abbreviation for the pair for many years. I don't know who first devised it; it was probably before even my time.

[Foxy]

Sept 20, 2018 7:31:05 GMT -5 vfds321s said:

I'm starting to wonder if the duo are members of VFD in the first place. They had an infant slave BEFORE the schism even happened so if they were in VFD, why would nobody (volunteer or villain, cause even villains may have standards) object to this practice (The duo even say at one point that the infant slave did not grow up, in a sinister, "we killed it but we won't say exact words because you all know what we meant" kind of tone).

Here are my theories:

1. I think the dastardly duo are like the leaders of the mob, so even if they did have child slaves, everyone would be too afraid of them to do anything about it.

2. I also think the dastardly duo are Count Olaf's older siblings.

[cwm]

I rewatched the movie this morning, and I note that at the end, Olaf is stated to have escaped after the charges against him were "overturned by a jury of his peers".

Is this meant to be a foreshadowing of the revelation that the sinister duo are on the High Court? (The movie's release is absolutely perfectly timed if so, coming out after TSS but before TPP.)

[Dante]

That would have been an amazing piece of foreshadowing if it were the case; but I'm pretty clear it's not the case. If it implies anything, it implies that Olaf's associates managed (and this is conceivable) to sneak their way into the jury at his trial; rather than being on the judges' bench. The sinister duo could certainly have helped, but at that point it all becomes rather a stretch.

[cwm]

Hmm. The idea that Olaf's associates got onto the jury is a more plausible one... but is there a reason why that isn't explicitly said or shown to be the case? The end of the movie has always sat rather oddly with me, to be honest - as if they couldn't film something, or Lemony's narration saying Olaf "vanished" after somehow getting acquitted was a last-minute reshoot...

[gothicarchiesfan]

Oct 26, 2018 16:43:23 GMT -5 cwm said:

Hmm. The idea that Olaf's associates got onto the jury is a more plausible one... but is there a reason why that isn't explicitly said or shown to be the case? The end of the movie has always sat rather oddly with me, to be honest - as if they couldn't film something, or Lemony's narration saying Olaf "vanished" after somehow getting acquitted was a last-minute reshoot...

The movie was originally set to end with the revelation that the montage of Olaf's ironic punishments had been a fantasy cooked up by Lemony Snicket who would then 'reveal' the actual truth, which was that in reality, Olaf managed to escape from the MM's audience on a rope pulled by his troupe.

Paramount made the filmmakers edit the scene so that it would appear that Olaf was justly punished. However, when the fact that this would stop any sequels being made was pointed out to them, they likely had Jude Law dub in the line about him acquitted in order to circumvent this. 

The sequence can be seen in many of the movie's trailers and is partially on the DVD/Bluray (but only about half of it, most of it is still missing).

[cwm]

Ah, that makes sense. Thank you!

(Although you do have to question if Paramount fully understood what they were buying the rights to if that was how they wanted it to end...)

[Hermes]

Thank you, GAF, that's really illuminating. I had always taken the line that the bit about Olaf going to prison was similar to Lemony's imagined happy endings in the books, but it certainly isn't brought out very clearly - indeed, some people went away with the impression that Olaf did go to prison. So it's good to know what lies at the root of it.

Regarding the possibility of more movies, he could have escaped from prison. Still, it does indeed mean that Paramount seem rather out of touch with the point of the series. Which of course makes us worry more about the end of the Netflix series. If it has a definite ending, it will have to be either a happy one of a sad one. A happy one won't fit a series of unfortunate events; a sad one will miss the theme of continued hope which is important to it. ('You're alive.')

Also, hi cwm! It's good to see you again.

[cwm]

Hi Hermes! Now that I actually have access to the Netflix series - which is excellent - hopefully I'll be a little more frequent round these parts.

[vfds321s]

Does the Netflix series have any hints as to the motives, goals, and connections they have to the story?

[Dante]

They're fundamentally not that different in the Netflix series; it's a tremendously faithful execution. The main difference is in presenting them as something like evil surrogate parents for Olaf and relative strangers to him before that; an interpretation which conflicts with theories of canon that they're Olaf's siblings, parents, or anything of the kind. But those theories are still allowed to stand for the books; the Netflix series is its own canon.