Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram Find&Fuck Waifus ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

Netflix A Series of Unfortunate Reviews, The Bad Beginning. (Patreon)

Published:
2017-01-21 02:24:07
Edited:
2017-01-21 02:28:38
Imported:
2022-01

Content

Let no one say that I don't instantly cave under peer pressure... 

Files

YouTube

Comments

Anonymous

Personally, I'm a huge fan of black comedy, so I really enjoyed the books for that reason. I am unsure how to feel about the series, and this is after me watching all the episodes now on Netflix. On the one hand they are really close to the books, but on the other hand, the tone is very strange leaving me confused on if I should laugh or not. I guess I'll understand after re-watching it a few times

Anonymous

Forget the review, I LOVE THAT SHIRT! I'm a bit of a Red Dwarf fan. Handler's word explanation is nothing compared to Victor Hugo's.

Anonymous

I like the deadpan, dark humor of the books and love how well they captured it on Netflix. The new characters were definitely confusing at first but I loved the way they created an air of uncertainty for those familiar with the books. I had no clue where they were going with that thread and kept going back and forth on whether it was legit or a cruel red herring. I think the resolution to those characters will split audiences on whether or not it was worth it.

Anonymous

I can understand your dislike because I didn't care for the books either. So I feel your pain.

Anonymous

This show has a serious tone problem, but I still find it entertaining.

Anonymous

I think that working a retcon into an adaptation actually makes the adaptation better. A retcon is essentially trying to re-write the books that have already been published, and an adaptation actually gets to re-write the story, so it would make sense that they would want to add the stuff that the author only thought of later.

Anonymous

I will admit to wondering what you thought of this series, but I would like credit for the fact that I didn't ask you to review it because I actually remembered that you really didn't like the books. That being said, I thought it hilarious that I dislike the exact same things that you do, even though I actually adore the books (unlike you I read them at just the right age and they had just the right combination of absurd artificiality and schnaedenfraude to appeal to the young, artistic sadist in me ?). That said, I think that this same artificiality and hyper stylization doesn't translate well to screen. I absolutely loathed the child actors--except for the baby, who was amazing-- and the stiffness, and the dead pan way everyone delivered their lines which bothered you bothered me just as much. I will admit that I did not even finish the first episode, and now I don't plan to, but I am a really really really looking forward to watching you suffer through them on our behalf! ?

Anonymous
>>3652998

Oh Lord, Victor Hugo...if we really want to be cruel we should ask The Dom to review Hunchback or Les Mis sometime...

Your Librarian

The series trailers were making NPH look exactly like Jim Carrey, but I figured unlike Carrey, NPH has successfully done dark and dramatic roles. So I withheld judgement of NPH as Olaf. Alas aside from dinosaur impressions, the two guys are too similar in performance now that I've seen the first 3 episodes of the new series. I also don't appreciate the secret society plotlines. By showing that VFD is willing to intervene when the children are in "real trouble" and ultimately strive to keep them safe, to someone not familiar with the book series, this show is removing a feeling of suspense, imo. Why did Violet need to outsmart Olaf's wedding plans if the secretary and Gustav were willing to step in at the play? Little winks and easter eggs here and there are one thing, but to do whole sequences of the agents communicating and trying to protect the kids is not a direction I like in the show so far. These kids have no one to look after them in the books and it adds weight to how they must rescue themselves (and the Quagmire kids, too).

Anonymous

I was planning on starting the series tomorrow, but when I saw that you posted I had to watch first thing. I love your show that much! Also, I'm glad you said you didn't like the book series because you felt bad for the orphans. That was the exact same reason I couldn't keep reading past book five, and EVERYONE at my school mocked me mercilessly for it (this series was *really* popular when I was young), saying, "That's the point, it's supposed to be [cartoonishly depressing]!" and I was like, "I KNOW, but that's why I can't like it!" Thanks The Dom, I feel vindicated.

Anonymous

As for whether I think it's right to take later retcons and crowbar them into the start of the story : I'm okay with the adaptation including it if it uses subtle foreshadowing rather than taking over the original story. For example, I wouldn't have minded Peter Jackson using LotR appendix stuff (like showing Gandalf fighting pre-risen Sauron instead of "The Necromancer") IF it didn't take over the whole Hobbit movies. Which it did. (Interestingly enough, Tolkien himself kept adding more and more retcons to a new Hobbit edition to try to tie it back to LotR, until eventually his friend C.S. Lewis said, "It's good, but it's not The Hobbit anymore." Tolkien himself eventually recognized that trying to crowbar so many retcons into an earlier story fundamentally changed what made the story good in the first place, and left it alone. He put the retcons into the LotR appendixes instead. I wish Peter Jackson realized the same thing and kept the appendix content to a minimum.) If Handler's conspiracy, spyglasses, and eye motif was a later development of the books, then (as someone who only read the first five and is also a stickler for loyal adaptation) I wouldn't mind if they're just there in the background as little Easter Eggs and subtle foreshadowing for people who've read later books, without the story CONSTANTLY drawing attention to the retconned material at the expense of how the events actually went down in the written material. At least, the way it went down in the SoUE movie. Does that make sense?

Anonymous

In my opinion, all the stuff they added into the TV series (like the VFD agents and hints), is a perfect example of good adaptation. It doesn't take away from the main story, doesn't change the main goals, motivation, or conflicts of any of the main characters. The additional information here is also in character, and in tune with the original books - it doesn't feel out of place, and adds a richness to the plot that it was lacking in some places. I especially enjoyed the tidbits with the VFD agents who were just a little too late to help the orphans - It explained why the VFD was seemingly not present in the kid's lives until later in the series. This reconning shows that the VFD was trying to help them this whole time, but was thwarted by bad luck or Olaf and his gang, so they were always just a little too late - a theme that persists throughout the entire series, so it fits perfectly. Overall, I feel these additions are making great improvements on the source material.

Anonymous

I don't mind the VFD stuff too much actually. I mean maybe its because I read the first books back when I was in elementary school and haven't read them since so I remember the books that delve deeper into the secret society stuff better than the first like 5 or 6 books. As for NPOlaf, I am not 100% sure what to make of him. Like I'm on the last episode of the season and I'm still not sure how I feel about his performance. But I do agree about the theme song, its a bit jarring to hear Olaf singing about the Baudelaire's plights and stuff. Weird.

Kim Huett

Just be thankful Netflix hasn't decided to remake The Prisoner and call it A Series Of Inexplicable Events. Though I wonder who they could get to play No. 6...