To me, the narration feels heavy handed in both the film and the series because a similar thing is also going on with the kids' dialogue. Yet in the book, it didn't bother me once, even re-reading it as an adult.

It's a cleverer series if the children are just unlucky and there isn't a unifying force behind everything bad that happens to them. Conspiracy theories are more comforting than thinking chance plays a big part in how our lives shake out.

The books are funnier. On screen the children's seeming lack of affect is more distracting and it's less funny to watch the events than to read about them because the filming and acting doesn't entirely cancel out the fact three bereaved children are sent to live with somebody abusive.

If I remember correctly they accuse him of starting the fire and he says "is that what you think?" and then tells them they don't know anything.

But within that his plots are fairly transparent and reading the books it feels frustrating when the other guardians fall for his extremely transparent plots because of their own personalities and insecurities.

I loved the tone and feel of Pushing Daisies. I'd class it as adult fairytale. But it's a very tricky thing to pull off. In this first episode the look is great but I don't buy the emotional beats completely like I did with Pushing Daisies. Ned, Chuck and Olive's emotional responses were more convincing than say Klaus…

I'm not sure about that. People complained he wasn't realistic enough in the films. In the book Olaf treads this weird line where he's smart enough to manipulate and deceive most of the adults but also it doesn't take a lot to do so and the children and the odd perceptive adult notice what's going on.

Plus in some ways everyone acting like that kind of behaviour is normal is a more realistic depiction of abuse because in addition to the hitting, everyone acts as though there's nothing wrong and this is the victim's fault.

"I am umabiguously happy that the mystery plot is getting integrated
earlier, as one of the major weaknesses of the series is how everything
pre-Austere Academy had to be retrofitted into the mystery plot later."

It seems incredibly close to the films to me. The set design, the dialogue, how it's being performed. Except I think Emily Browning and Liam Aitken were better at conveying despair underneath the ostensibly muted responses to grief.

Ironically children are less turned off by new words than adults. Most children are aware they still have a lot to learn. We adults, not so much ;-)

Three words: Best End Credits:

This was the problem the film ran into. Olaf is hammy in the books as well but I think if the actor playing him played it completely straight, he's just a violent paedophile and it doesn't work. But if he's too hammy then it seems like the threat to the kids is being minimised in an uncomfortable way ;-)

Out of interest how did you find the film? I thought this was really, really close in tone and style to the film and I'd probably give the edge to the film because I hought Emily Browning and Liam Aitken were stronger actors.

I didn't like that. Obviously in the books it doesn't come up until the middle of the way through and then it turns out to be false hope and I think it's more pwoerful that way.

You need to do that less than you think ;-)

In book 13/14 he actually denies starting it which I liked (assuming it was true). I thought it suggested that a load of separate misfortunes are unlucky but it doesn't mean the world is conspiring against you.

He didn't die and he hooked up with his original FBI/some police partner if I remember correctly about the Final Break (the made for TV movie that came after S4).

I liked the film and I like this but really it's strikingly similar in tone and performance. But I think it still seems like the books don't completely translate to the screen. The children seem too robotic to be real (they don't seem like the rug has been pulled from under them and they never really break down) and…

They should save it for Toilet Week.