|
Post by gothicarchiesfan on Jun 19, 2020 17:02:18 GMT -5
Look on the bright side though, at least she was credited right above a character who didn't even appear in the movie, lol. God, it still annoys me to this day that Silberling made such inspired casting choices like Timothy Spall, Jane Adams, Jennifer Coolidge, Luis Guzman, and Craig Ferguson - only to do absolutely nothing interesting with any of them. I think it all ties back to the fact that Olaf was made the focus of every scene single scene he was in; the troupe basically have nothing to do and in some cases barely appear on screen. Even the deleted footage on the DVD that features them is still just basically improv fluff that barely even features the Baudelaires. If they were going to have the troupe make an impact then they really should have given them some scenes with the children. That's one area where I think the show 100% improves on both the books and the film because the troupe get much more to do and are allowed to interact with the story to a greater degree.
|
|
|
Post by Marlowe on Jun 19, 2020 17:18:09 GMT -5
Yes, the extensive amount of deleted footage affirms my belief that the 2004 film's main problem was that Silberling just had no idea how to reign Carrey in. JC wasn't bad casting per se (I found the rare moments of menace, like Stephano intoning "I hardly sleep at all", effective), he just needed a director who'd be much less willing to indulge his flamboyant flights of fancy.
|
|
|
Post by gothicarchiesfan on Jun 19, 2020 17:28:29 GMT -5
Yes, the extensive amount of deleted footage affirms my belief that the 2004 film's main problem was that Silberling just had no idea how to reign Carrey in. JC wasn't bad casting per se (I found the rare moments of menace, like Stephano intoning "I hardly sleep at all", effective), he just needed a director who'd be much less willing to indulge his flamboyant flights of fancy. Indeed. What the movie really needed more than anything else, for me at least, was a strong vision. Carrey, the executives, the director, and Handler/Sonnenfeld all clearly had very different ideas about what the movie should be like and as a result it ends up feeling tonally inconsistent.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jun 19, 2020 17:46:52 GMT -5
It's worth remembering that the only mention of Eleonora in the main series relates to the Baudelaires meeting her at the Hotel Preludio, as reported in TPP, and there we don't hear either her surname or her occupation. The whole saga of Eleonora Poe, the editor, comes entirely from TUA. And there is a mention of a spyglass in TSS, so it is book canon, even though it was movie canon first. It's true. Chapter 7 TSS: "what looked like a periscope, or perhaps a spyglass, an ice cream scoop, lying forlornly in a pile of ashes encrusted with burnt sugar, and an iron archway emblazoned with the words "V.F.D. Library" One of the burned objects may seem a spyglass. But I think it's not exactly the same thing than shown in the movie, Hermes . Since we are talking about Count Olaf's troupe, I have to say that it is something very, very good. In the books, they are not exactly disposable characters, and the death of some of them is more impactful than sad. If they died on the show, it would be sad, because I would say I got attached to them. On the other hand, the death of the aberrations was impressive, but it did not make me sad. For me it was unnecessary violence.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Jun 19, 2020 17:56:27 GMT -5
Notes on first half of episode 1:
The opening seems to be influenced by BBRE, with the emphasis on how surprising it was that the parents sent the children to the beach alone, implying that they had some specific plan tht day.
The scene with the Baudelaires collaborating on the invention is very striking and charming, but I do wonder if it tends to undermine the distinct specialities of Violet and Klaus, which are emphasised in the books.
Note the early reference to the Volunteer Fire Department. (It strikes me, by the way, that 'official' is not really the opposite of 'volunteer'. Volunteer fire departments are official; what they aren't is professional.)
The visit to the Baudelaire mansion is interesting: I don't recall this happening in the book, so it seems to be a reminsicence of the movie. In both movie and show, the house is not destroyed as comprehensively as the book suggests.
The Poes seem in some way to resemble the Mitchums.
What should we make of Edgar-or-Albert's suggestion that the Baudelaires set the fire? Do the Poe children, like the Willoughbys, want to be orphans?
One of the Poe children later lived in a cave and talked to sheep. Might Beatrice have met him there? (Note the implications for the timeline of Lemony's research.)
Justice Strauss seems to be Jewish, as she greets the children with 'shalom'. ('Strauss' is a Jewish name, but not exclusively so.)
Olaf's 'flammable' strongly suggests he started the fire - I think there will be other indications of this - unlike the books where this is always kept mysterious. I wonder if this is part of the way the show tends to avoid unsolved mysteries (for understandable reasons, as I've said before) - this was never really treated as an important mystery in the books, but I think some readers saw it as one, and were annoyed when it was not solved.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jun 19, 2020 18:04:02 GMT -5
Olaf's 'flammable' strongly suggests he started the fire - I think there will be other indications of this - unlike the books where this is always kept mysterious. I wonder if this is part of the way the show tends to avoid unsolved mysteries (for understandable reasons, as I've said before) - this was never really treated as an important mystery in the books, but I think some readers saw it as one, and were annoyed when it was not solved. I think flammable is a reference to LSTUA, R states that Beatrice is flammable. Is there a figurative meaning for the word "flammable"? Please help me with this English question.
|
|
|
Post by gothicarchiesfan on Jun 19, 2020 18:36:19 GMT -5
Is there a VFD manhole cover on the street in front of Olaf’s house? Yup. I think it's actually seen in the trailer. And in the episode, too.
|
|
|
Post by gothicarchiesfan on Jun 19, 2020 19:13:30 GMT -5
Notes on first half of episode 1: The opening seems to be influenced by BBRE, with the emphasis on how surprising it was that the parents sent the children to the beach alone, implying that they had some specific plan that day. The visit to the Baudelaire mansion is interesting: I don't recall this happening in the book, so it seems to be a reminsicence of the movie. In both movie and show, the house is not destroyed as comprehensively as the book suggests. It strikes me that after THH, Handler seemed to be making an active effort to integrate the VFD storyline into the plots of the first four books. Both the BBRE and original draft of the film script stand out as perhaps the most obvious attempts at this retconning (excluding the show). Also, many of the story elements and visual motifs that repeat between the show and the movie are largely due to Handler and Sonnenfeld being fired relatively late into the film's pre-production. Ironically, the drafts written after their firing were probably more "book-accurate" than Handler's in terms of loyalty to the text.
|
|
|
Post by Uncle Algernon on Jun 19, 2020 19:47:13 GMT -5
Olaf's 'flammable' strongly suggests he started the fire - I think there will be other indications of this - unlike the books where this is always kept mysterious. Not my takeaway at all. Whether Olaf started the fire or not, he's clearly aware of how the Baudelaire parents died at this point; considering everything we know about him, it is only to be expected he would make this kind of tasteless joke. Whether he caused the fire or not, he certainly approves of it, and he thinks it's fun to advertise that fact to the traumatized orphans. Because he's Olaf. There may be other potential "Olaf started the fire" hints in the show, but the question of who set the Baudelaire fire is actually one of the few mysteries kept largely open-ended, as far as I know — they keep the “Is that what you think? (…) You don't know anything” line in The End, as well.
|
|
|
Post by Christmas Chief on Jun 19, 2020 20:34:52 GMT -5
Is there a figurative meaning for the word "flammable"? Please help me with this English question. No, I don't think so. At least, I don't know of any idiomatic meanings. I'm watching the first episode now and will be back shortly with some notes.
|
|
|
Post by gothicarchiesfan on Jun 19, 2020 20:37:29 GMT -5
Justice Strauss seems to be Jewish, as she greets the children with 'shalom'. ('Strauss' is a Jewish name, but not exclusively so.) Oddly enough, there appears to have been a section cut from this moment as the recap in part two shows footage of the children stepping out of the car and greeting Justice Strauss which isn't actually seen in the scene itself. The deleted footage seen in the opening recap to A Bad Beginning: Part 2. Here's where the scene begins in A Bad Beginning: Part 1.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jun 19, 2020 21:51:08 GMT -5
Olaf's 'flammable' strongly suggests he started the fire - I think there will be other indications of this - unlike the books where this is always kept mysterious. Not my takeaway at all. Whether Olaf started the fire or not, he's clearly aware of how the Baudelaire parents died at this point; considering everything we know about him, it is only to be expected he would make this kind of tasteless joke. Whether he caused the fire or not, he certainly approves of it, and he thinks it's fun to advertise that fact to the traumatized orphans. Because he's Olaf. There may be other potential "Olaf started the fire" hints in the show, but the question of who set the Baudelaire fire is actually one of the few mysteries kept largely open-ended, as far as I know — they keep the “Is that what you think? (…) You don't know anything” line in The End, as well. I am very grateful for that.
|
|
|
Post by Christmas Chief on Jun 19, 2020 22:18:43 GMT -5
Episode 1The “Look Away” intro: I agree with tk that these sequences do an excellent job conveying the detective / vintage theme that carries through the episodes. Cleverly written and beautifully sequenced. I’ve said before that this first episode feels distinctively cartoonish from the remaining episodes. Upon rewatching, I’m not sure I’d stand by that statement. The toy-like firetruck in one of the opening scenes and the street outside Poe’s house feel cartoon-like, but the rest seems consistent with other episodes. I remember this first episode being much more saturated than it actually was. The scene with the Baudelaires collaborating on the invention is very striking and charming, but I do wonder if it tends to undermine the distinct specialities of Violet and Klaus, which are emphasised in the books. I wonder if this emphasis on collaboration was intentional to make the children seem more realistic and well-rounded. In addition to the beach project, Klaus helps Violet with her grandfather clock toaster, and Violet helps Klaus understand a Proust quote. The spyglass is also a movie- rather than book-inspired artifact, yes? I interpreted the statement that way. Edgar and Albert seem to be victims of their parents’ ignorance more than the imitators they are in the books. (Did you see that Netflix made a Willoughby movie, by the way? It’s not very good, but I did watch the first 20 minutes in memory of reading the (much better) book at your suggestion.) The high fives to Edgar and Albert were a nice touch. Mrs. Poe has some nefarious-sounding lines undercut by ignorance. For example, when she tells the Baudelaires to “say it.” We find out that she needed them to say it in order to justify the direct quote for her headline, which is awful - but not as awful as the impression one receives from the “say it” line left alone, which is that she delights in the children’s suffering for its own sake. I agree with gothicarchiesfan - impressive sets all around. I enjoy all the additions of Snicketish lines not in the original series. Such as: Olaf: “The plural of ‘bed’ is ‘bed.’” Strauss: “Well, I wouldn’t know, I live alone.” She also references a “mitzvah” later in the episode, which the Baudelaires do not understand. (I think others have criticized this moment as it implies that the Baudelaires are not Jewish.) Father burnt the quesadillas - was this toast in TBB? Did I see a reference somewhere to Neil Patrick Harris improvising some of his lines? Some of his asides, like the “for recycling” comment after dinner, are fantastic but seem like they could have been improvised outside of the script. My unexpected impression of this episode was that it’s terribly sad. I know how obvious that sounds, but I was still surprised by how impactful Olaf’s physical and psychological abuse towards the Baudelaires came across. That’s even despite the various instances of comic relief and cartoonish elements that dot the episode. My suspicion is that the length of time spent in Olaf’s house makes this episode darker than the non-TBB episodes, but I’m interested to test the theory as the series continues. What were other people's impressions of the relative darkness of this episode?
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jun 19, 2020 22:37:23 GMT -5
About Violet, he tells Klaus about the translation error and that it would be better to see the original in French ... I thought it was really cool when thinking about how the ASOUE books published in French contain significant differences in the history of ASOUE. Was this a reference to this fact or just a coincidence?
After talking with TheAsh for a while, I think the idea is that the Baudelaires were not raised as Orthodox Jews, just as Daniel Handler is not an Orthodox Jew. But I am sure that they did not celebrate Christmas in the winter.
This episode was really obscure because it was necessary to stay in memory forever.
|
|
|
Post by gothicarchiesfan on Jun 20, 2020 0:05:05 GMT -5
I’ve said before that this first episode feels distinctively cartoonish from the remaining episodes. Upon rewatching, I’m not sure I’d stand by that statement. The toy-like firetruck in one of the opening scenes and the street outside Poe’s house feel cartoon-like, but the rest seems consistent with other episodes. I remember this first episode being much more saturated than it actually was. I think it's possible the movie's more subdued colour palette probably had something to do with that, though ironically, the movie actually did feature a toy fire truck. During post production, Brad Silberling wanted more fire trucks in the wide shot of the mansion's ruins and because the special effects company had only constructed a couple of models, they had to go to a toy store to buy another one. The spyglass is also a movie- rather than book-inspired artifact, yes? In a manner of speaking; they were a major part of Daniel Handler's original draft for the film before he got fired. Even more so than the finished movie or even the show. There were going to be different variants that functioned as decoders, telephones and even walkie-talkies. The high fives to Edgar and Albert were a nice touch. At first I was afraid they were going to go down the "married couple bickers all the time" angle but I'm glad they were able to make them seem like a relatively well adjusted and loving couple. For some reason that makes their almost entirely unintentional cruelty seem even funnier and more tragic. I agree with gothicarchiesfan - impressive sets all around. Thanks Christmas Chief . Given that he had less than a 10th of the budget and time that Rich Heinrichs got on the film, I thought Bo Welch did a superb job. Did I see a reference somewhere to Neil Patrick Harris improvising some of his lines? Some of his asides, like the “for recycling” comment after dinner, are fantastic but seem like they could have been improvised outside of the script. There is Olaf's line about buying the hourglass online and I'm sure a couple of others, overall though, it seems like they tried to keep this kind of thing to a minimum.
|
|