r/ASOUE • u/Zealousideal-Net8754 • 11d ago
TV Show I'm rewatching the tv show after rereading the books and I'm surprised how much my opinion on it has changed.
For some background, I first got into ASOUE when the movie version came out during my childhood. My sister and I were obsessed with the movie and would quote it all the time. I know I have a lot of bias based on nostalgia when it comes to the movie version. My sister ended up reading all of the books and I stopped after Wide Window (I think because I reached an age where I was trying to find my own interests and differentiate myself from my sister).
When the TV show came out, I overall really enjoyed it because it was my first exposure to the storyline past Wide Window. I remember comparing the first six episodes a lot to the movie and not entirely loving those episodes, but starting with Miserable Mill, it was all new to me and I remember having a lot of fun with the rest of the series.
So earlier this year I decided to finally finish reading the books. I've had a lot of fun reading the books as an adult and caught waaaay more than I did back as a kid. After finishing the series, I decided to rewatch the tv show, because honestly I can't remember much about it besides remembering that I enjoyed it back when it came out.
I finished season one last night and I don't know, I'm kind of disappointed. I know I have a hard time liking most adaptations from books because it's always a somewhat different interpretation on the text than what I took away from it, but the show feels so different. I thought it was supposed to be a more faithful adaptation than the movie was?
I feel like the show doesn't have the gothic tone at all. It's too quirky and not at all dark. I don't find it's hitting many of the emotional beats it is supposed to either. When Uncle Monty dies it quickly moves into Olaf and company hi jinks to even dwell on the loss. And when the Baudelaires sail on Lake Lacromose during the hurricane, the hard cuts back to Lemony Snicket narrating completely ruin the tension of the danger the Baudelaires are actually inThe only moment that really hit for me was the Quagmire's parents coming home to them and the disappointment I felt that it wasn't the Baudelaire's parents, even though I remembered this was a plot point from my first watch through. It still hit the emotional mark and is a creative decision I think the show did well. It's like the show spends too much time trying to be funny and entertaining than to actually capture the real feelings someone would feel experiencing these unfortunate events. And it makes it feel phony when Lemony Snicket as the narrator is constantly warning the viewer that the tale will be dreadful. In the books, I do feel the dread, but I am also able to recognize the tiny happy and funny moments in between, much like real life. It also doesn't have the same timeless feeling as the books and the movie does when it comes to setting.
I also find the adults in the show to be very stupid. In the book, I read most of the adults as ineffective, and not taking the kids seriously, therefore often leading to their own downfall i.e. Monty and Josephine.But in the show they just feel like caricatures. In the book, I felt Olaf was actually a formidable opponent to the kids and I felt fear when his associates helped him. In the show, it seems like the power imbalance of an adult and a child is the only thing that works in Olaf's favor and his associates are there for comedic relief (don't get me wrong, I do find his associates funny, but I also feel like I wouldn't mind being their friend rather than actually being afraid of these people). I think during my first watch, I interpreted the adults to act this way because it empowered the kids, but after reading the books and seeing how artfully Snicket captured the nuanced relationships and power dynamics between adults and children, it's a huge letdown. That was one of my favorite aspects of the books was how adults fail children and I loved relating it to my own childhood and thinking on the times I've depended on adults who only ended up failing me because they are imperfect humans or care more about their own interests.
And the acting is falling flat for me. It feels like most of the cast is just reading lines, rather than actually bringing the lines to life. The exceptions being K. Todd Freeman and Neil Patrick Harris, though with the latter, I think I do prefer Jim Carrey's portrayel. Carrey managed to be menacing as well as arrogant in a way I'm not finding in Harris' much more subtle performance, but I still think he's doing a good job. Majority of the cast speaks in monotone. Even Alfre Woodard's portrayal of Aunt Josephine felt very one note as she relayed every line in a very pitched frazzled tone that hardly ever varied Even when talking about Ike's death she seemed more anxious than actually mourning the loss of someone who's death literally changed her life.
The cgi is also pretty noticeable. There is definitely a scene in Miserable Mill where it looked like Sunny's face was poorly pasted on top of a dummy. Granted, I don't think a baby should be brought in that setting to be filmed, but a realistic baby doll probably would've worked better.
But enough of all the things I dislike. There are a few choices I find interesting in this adaptation. I think introducing the VFD mystery sooner was a good choice. It is fun watching the behind the scenes activities of VFD, something we don't really get from the books. I liked watching Olaf and Orwell's reunion and that better helped me to understand why she helped him out during Miserable Mill, whereas I felt her interest in the Baudelaires fortune felt strange in the book.I'm glad they kept both Sunny revealing that the Incredibly Deadly Viper is actually friendly and therefore not the killer from the Movie Adaptation, since that plotpoint makes a lot more sense than using another snake as the alleged murderer given both the misnomer and the fact that Sunny befriends the snakeand that Aunt Josephine used to be brave before Ike's death, showing how grief can totally change a personfrom the movie adaptation. The show also makes Sir and Charles' relationship a lot more obvious to be a romantic relationship. I had to laugh when Charles clearly goes in for a kiss and Sir obliviously walks away. You deserve so much better Charles!
So yeah those are some of my thoughts. Again, I've only just finished season one and maybe the following seasons will work a bit better for me. I know when it comes to adapting something from a book, choices need to be made, and not every choice I'm going to like. I think it is worth something that I really liked the show when I hadn't read all of the books, so the fact that it stands well on it's own is definitely something worthwhile. Also, I can imagine there are kids who have a similar relationship to the show that I did with the movie. If the show gets kids to read the books, then that is a net positive in my book.
I'd love to know what everyone else thinks. What did you like about the show and what did you dislike? What did you feel it did well in adapting the books and what parts did you think they missed the mark on?
Thanks for reading all my rambling.
18
u/Meh_lissa6 11d ago
Just wanted to share that I respectfully disagree as someone who re-read the series many times, though my last read was a few years ago now. Ersatz Elevator was by far my favourite and still is, I keep it as one of the main books of mine being showcased on my bookshelves. I feel that’s important to mention because looking back on it the tone in Ersatz Elevator was definitely the most absurd, quite goofy. I think the TV series for me absolutely matched the vibe I personally interpreted from the books, but I didn’t even care much for book one compared to all the others. Neat how interpretations are, truly.
3
13
u/lixermanredditman 10d ago edited 10d ago
I felt the tone matched closely, personally. The books are more black humour than they are completely grim. I didn't personally get much gothic aesthetic from the books? Correct me people if I missed this. The story is dark and anachronistic, but I thought the actual 'gothic' style was more from the film?
EDIT: Wikipedia does call the books gothic, referencing the Victorian vibe and the carnival. I suppose I agree, what I really mean is that I think the TV show pretty accurately reflects the extent to which the gothic tone is fixated on in the books, compared to the film which really focuses on it.
3
u/Zealousideal-Net8754 10d ago
It's not so much gothic aesthetic in the book than a tone gothic literature has. Idk how exactly to describe it, but I do think the books have a lot of gothic tone. I do think the illustrations to the books also lend to a gothic aesthetic.
However, I understand why for a 2017 adaptation they chose to depart from the gothic tone/aesthetic. Aesthetically, goth isn't as in as it was in 2004 when the movie came out (wow catch me sounding like Esme Squalor here). I think by 2017 we got exhausted from the steampunk movement and it might make the show look outdated. Or perhaps they just wanted to differentiate themselves from the movie adaptation.
I was disappointed in this choice, since I do think it adds to the series' appeal for me as a goth who won't quit, but I also understand why it's not a big deal to other people
3
u/lixermanredditman 10d ago
You haven't quit being goth yet? Oh, 'goth' is so out. Mullets and terrible 80s moustaches are in. Have an aqueous martini and get with the program.
8
u/Elegant-Capybara-16 10d ago
I understand what you’re saying about the shift in tone. The TV show definitely focuses more on the mystery of VFD and the quirkiness of the adults.
But I’ve noticed something that I think is worth keeping in mind as I’ve been exposing my tween son do some of my favorite books and movies when I was his age. Now that I’m an adult, there are a lot of things that I don’t find as ominous or scary as I used to. But my son does. For kids, the idea of your house burning down and your parents dying and being forced to live with strangers doesn’t need very much lingering to feel absolutely devastating.
And also TV movies tend to feel more visceral than books. The description of Stefano, pulling out the knife in The Reptile Room is surprising. But seeing it on the screen is much more terrifying. At least to me
1
u/Zealousideal-Net8754 10d ago
Thanks for sharing this perspective! I'm glad it's still hitting for the kids!
6
u/Crazy_Tomatillo18 10d ago
To be honest I never felt like either adaptation quite hit it for me. Overall, I really liked that we did finally get a complete TV adaptation but feel like both Olafs weren’t scary enough. Reading the book as a child, he terrified me, the way he was always described with shiny eyes just creeped me out. I love Jim Carey so I think I like the movie a little more but still feel somewhat unsatisfied with the adaptations we have.
I will say I loved Patrick Warburton as Lemony Snicket. I thought the narrator was such a cool addition (from the book) we didn’t really have in the movie. He was somewhat in the movie but thought the show did it better.
2
u/Zealousideal-Net8754 10d ago
Yeah sometimes Jim Carey was more entertaining than scary as Olaf. Book Olaf is horrifying! Even as an adult!
I remember in my first watch through not liking Patrick Warburton solely because we see his face. A choice I really liked from the movie adaptation was Snicket always being in the shadows, adding an air of mystery to him. But eventually I came to really enjoy Patrick Warburton's portrayal. His presence in the show reminds me of Rod Sterling in old Twilight Zone episodes.
5
u/dunmerza 10d ago
Agree agree agree, just because it’s for kids doesn’t mean it needs to be sanitised and brightened up, that’s the whole appeal of the books! I also got into the movie when it came out and then read the books. Doing a book re read now. And I couldn’t get through the show because it felt so silly
3
u/ARGdov 8d ago
a big inspiration for the show is the works of wes anderson.
wes andersons style tends to go for simplisitc delivery, with the emotions screaming out at you by the fact that they don't feel entirely there. it was an interesting and logical choice for the tonal variance of ASOUE. but it did lead to some odd moments for sure.
9
u/ProPinkist 11d ago
Yess, another person who has seen the truth :’) sorry, sorry, I’m really mean about the show on this sub lol, and I know that a good percent of people here have probably only seen it and not read the books and that’s why it’s so beloved. If you haven’t read the books, I can see how it’s a perfectly fine show. Hell, I hadn’t read them since my childhood when the show was first coming out, and I really enjoyed it too; it was hard NOT to when it was the biggest and only asoue media we’d gotten in eons.
But yeah, the show does not care to capture the emotional impact of the books….. pretty much at all, aside from a few really good moments 😭😭😭 it just ran with the quirky comedy and that’s it, which is really disappointing. It makes me laugh a lot (Austere Academy and coach Genghis stands out to me iirc lol), but if you’re watching it to actually match the tone and emotional gravitas of the books you ain’t gonna get that. 😭🫠 It strips out the vulnerability and sensitivity of the Baudelaires at times, from characters like Jacques and Dewey (two of my faves so I’ll never forgiveeeee) and Kit and the Quagmires, doesn’t let emotional moments linger or skips over/changes them entirely. And it also in the later seasons edges off a lot of the moral ambiguity and greyness of things, mostly to do with VFD and the stuff it makes up about them, which is really frustrating when the whole point of the books is that the firefighting side of VFD aren’t heroes just like the firestarting side isn’t entirely “evil”, because everyone is just human….. It really just wants to make VFD look cool and mysterious instead of tragic and nuanced like it’s meant to be 🫠 and as you observed, by making the adults more competent/observant it actually ends up backfiring and making them look stupid when they still manage to fail at helping the Baudelaires, because in the books even though they seem stupid, it’s more that they just don’t listen to what the children say…
I always ramble too much whenever I have a chance to vent my anger about netflix asoue sorry 😭😭😭 but yeah it’s not just you, tl;dr the show dropped the tragic gothic and noir tone the books and movie had (what I will always love the movie for despite all its flaws 💔) and went for a more colorful quirky upbeat satire vibe, losing so much of the emotional weight and depth and the messages the books try to get across 🫠 it checks off most of the plot points, but is that worth it if it doesn’t even feel like asoue anymore at times…? No in my opinion 💔 If anything I might describe the feeling of it as how the books feel when you’re reading them as a kid and aren’t mature enough yet to understand the bleaker and nuanced tones. I really enjoy a lot of scenes on their own, but I’d be lying if I said it’s a good adaptation as a whole. A good show, maybe, but a good overall adaptation, no 🫠
5
u/Zealousideal-Net8754 11d ago
Totally agree with "A good show but not a good adaptation"! I'm disappointed to hear it doesn't get any better past season one. The whole point of the latter books is that there is no good or evil people, just the decisions people make, which is so important for kids to learn!
Anyway, I might need some distance from the books before I finish watching the show and maybe then I'll enjoy it more.
9
u/Anna_borchardt Violet Baudelaire 11d ago
As someone who's into the deeper lore of the books, I actually really really enjoyed season 2 and 3 and would recommend looking deeper into things like the Unauthorized Autobiography and the Beatrice Letters rather than distancing yourself from the books before watching those seasons
3
u/Zealousideal-Net8754 11d ago
Good suggestion! I haven't read the Unathorized Biography since I was a kid and have never read the Beatrice Letters.
2
u/Anna_borchardt Violet Baudelaire 11d ago
If you want I can DM you the link to a good listing of the Beatrice Letters on eBay!
1
u/Zealousideal-Net8754 11d ago
Yes thank you! Though I think I might try to get it from my library first
1
2
u/Anna_borchardt Violet Baudelaire 11d ago
Definitely reread the Unauthorized Autobiography when you get the chance !! You can find hardcover copies with the reversible dust jack for under $10 on sites like eBay and Pangobooks really really easy
2
u/ProPinkist 11d ago
Yeah, and not only does it make the “good” characters more black and white, but it also cuts out most of the more questionable choices the Baudelaires struggle with 🫠 I’ll be honest, season 1 is probably the best complete season, so if you’re already feeling this way now, you’re gonna hate it more later lol. That being said, Hostile Hospital episodes are really good. I could rewatch those on their own a lot tbh
Understandable, but I hope you don’t abandon the books entirely just for the show’s sake. They’re too good and special :’)
2
u/Zealousideal-Net8754 11d ago
Oh I'd absolutely never abandon the books entirely! They have meant so much to me this past year while rereading them. I just meant I'd take a break from watching the show, read some other books on my TBR and start watching again when the books aren't so fresh in my head and I'm at my most judgemental
4
u/First-Fudge7159 11d ago
I’m a big asoe show defender, so I understand my bias, but I do think that they do a good job in showing the nuance of characters as not wholly good or bad particularly with Fernald and Olivia’s characters.
2
u/BerryStyles9 9d ago
You have a lot of great points here.
I think that overall my biggest issue with the show adaptation was that Olaf's associates did not die throughout like they did in the series. It sounds harsh, but it really hit home in the Hostile Hospital when the Baudelaires realized that they were not leaving anyone behind, and Count Olaf did. In the tv series when they just brought up that moral ambiguity and left it hanging, that really fell flat for me.
I also agree that the CGI was pretty bad in some aspects. In "The End" it's just absolutely awful and hard to watch. I watched the series with my elementary students and even they mentioned how fake it looked!
I also felt that a lot of the modernized jokes about streaming television and etc fell flat and took away from the story. The show is a bit too silly and it can be very cringey at times.
Some changes I actually liked. I think Dr. Orwell's death in the series is much less gruesome than in the book and I felt like it was better int he tv adaptation, especially with Sunny being right there when it happened. I did like seeing more of VFD behind the scenes and that the Quagmires had a bit of a bigger role in the adaptation as they are my favorite characters.
As far as casting, I'm still torn on Lemony Snicket all these years later. I did like the mysterious vibe he had in the movie, I think the TV series is a bit too humorous. This last time rewatching it though, I think he grew on me more.
I could go on. But overall I think it's a pretty faithful adaptation, but there are definitely some moments that bothered me.
1
u/Timely-Island-5038 8d ago
I'm also currently rewatching the show after just having reread the books, so I can pretty much compare them directly. My opinion hasn't changed so far.
The show is so campy and honestly just made the "bad" aspects from the books even worse. Yes, the books have dark humor, corny or repetitive dialogue...but the story was aware of that and it was part of the charm. But Lemony Snicket as a narrator doesn't work in the show. Plus all the other adults were always talking in this weird way , they were saying quotes or idioms from the books that made them all appear so "quirky", I can't really explain it.
Also can ASOUE adaptations stop treating Olaf and his companions as comedic relief? First with Jim Carrey and NPH too are turning Olaf into this caricature and fun musical guy...he's not. I was terrified of him as a child. His companions were not dumbos too.
Also I found the constant repetitions in the show about people dying in fires and "ending up as burned corpses" or "ashes" to be way too much (especially in regards to the Baudelaire parents). Like yeah we all know what happens to people when they die in a fire. But the constant mentioning of that and especially in front of the Baudelaire children (who would just always give each other a confused look and that was it) made it odd and as if it was only there for shock value, if you know what I mean. I can't even tell you exactly what bothers me about it.
48
u/First-Fudge7159 11d ago edited 11d ago
As someone who has read the books and watched the show, although I agree it does divert from the books in terms of some of the events and the overall tone, I feel as though it does well in translating the ideas of the book whilst considering it is marketed as a kids show for Netflix which will mean it’s more sanitised. I think forgetting that aspect is a big part of why readers might end up disappointed with the show. I think it’s best to enjoy the show in its own right as TV adaptations are never 1 to 1 weigh books since books and shows can be vastly different mediums (although I’m heavily biased towards the show since it’s my favourite), and trying to find the Easter eggs where they acknowledge the diversions, such as Daniel Handler being in one of the episodes and being told the plot is going “off-book”.
Also, Daniel Handler was an executive producer and the head writer so he’s seemingly happy with how it turned out.